[removed]

Very very true. Nowadays many promonent physicists stake their careers on stuff like String Theory or Multiverse Theory, when neither have any direct evidence to back these up, other than "the math makes sense". That's why it's very refreshing when you hear scientists in places like CERN say "we hope we're wrong because that means we get to make new physics". And also why this year's Nobel Prize for Physics is a big deal: they managed to prove Einstein wrong as well.

[removed]

[removed]

I'm with you - collagen is great for you, I'm just here to make sure we're advocating for all dietary proteins, including collagen, especially for the folks in the cheap seats.

Anecdotally, I've been eating a very protein-rich diet for several years (averaging roughly twice what is recommended daily), and have also burned myself cooking dozens of times in that span. I have zero scarring. 🤷

The developer of the inhaled vaccine that was approved in September (CanSino Biologics) has not submitted an application seeking the U.S. FDA's authorization to date for their Convidecia Air vaccine and it doesn't look like they have announced an intention to do so. They have some clinical trials sponsored for the vaccine, but none appear to be registered to enroll participants in the U.S.

Some have expressed skepticism over the benefit that these kinds of vaccines could offer relative to currently available vaccines in the U.S., including recently in a viewpoint co-authored by the FDA's top-ranking vaccines official Peter Marks:

"It is also not at all clear from well-controlled clinical trials that administering existing vaccines by the intranasal route (as some countries have already even approved) will provide truly meaningful benefit over the existing generation of COVID-19 vaccines. Such limitations were recently illustrated by the disappointing results with a viral-vectored vaccine administered intranasally in an early-phase clinical trial."

Things that aren't yet fossilized are usually referred to as "subfossils" , which is probably how you want to search for this information

Anyway, I did some research and here's some things I found

This paper describes camel bones from about 3 million years ago on Ellesmere Island. They are embedded in layers of leaf and moss that are described as "subfossil" and the bones themselves were fresh enough to allow the removal of significant collagen for analysis. There have been reports of even older collagen/soft tissue, but that's in bones that have clearly been fossilized. I'm guessing these bones are closer to what you are talking about, given the context of their preservation.

Here's a similar study from the same area looking at beaver teeth and local vegetation, comparing isotope ratios to see what beavers were eating. So we are talking about plant and animal remains that still have organic material that isn't too heavily modified.

Finally, here's a paper that managed to snag DNA from mammoth teeth slightly more than a million years old. That's less than the previous studies, but DNA is more fragile than collagen, so we are talking better preserved specimens here.

Anyway, the answer is probably "A few million years, and you find them in frozen sediments"

Although who knows what might be frozen under the ice at the bottom of Antarctica

[removed]

Or to put it another way: Newton realized that as the apple fell to the earth, the earth also fell towards the apple!

Yeah it makes intuitive sense that the higher mass rock balls would be more likely to hold onto their atmospheres.

What’s the difference between inconsistencies and contradictions?

I understand that "she" is our maternal common ancestor. But why do we place her at 150,000 years ago? What about HER mother? Or greatgreatgreat...grand mother?

What is it that makes 150,000 years the cut off for mtDNA and not, say a million years?

mtEve's mother had the same mtDNA did she not?

My level of physics is limited to what I understand on the side because of my math major, but I have a question:

If speed of causality changes, would we even be able to measure that? Or what the change in causality cancel in all of our measurement instruments to give the same result again?

[removed]

[removed]

That’s fair, cosmology and general relativity is a notable exception to all of this.

Thanks for the great answer. I have bit of a follow up question - does a planet need an active core to have a magnetosphere?

No, a large percentage of muscles acting on fingers and wrist are in forearm

We do have very good evidence that energy conservation is false as it is widely accepted that we describe the universe roughly with a FRW metric that explicitly breaks time translational symmetry.

So is the relatively small atmosphere on Mars entirely or mostly due to the lower mass of the planet?

[removed]

Yeah, and if we have done it once we are probably doing it again, right now.

Seems like it’s a good example for how a totally wrong conceptualization of a situation can still be very congruent with what you can observe easily

[removed]

[removed]