If gene editing embryos becomes widespread and common as a result of reduced cost and social acceptance, how great will the social divide become (if any at all becomes apparent) between those who have undergone the genetic alteration and those who remain unedited?

are you willing to change your mind when darwinism is proven wrong? We have literally gotten to the point where mainstream journals are publishing articles that wouldve been considered "creationist"/intelligent design two decades ago, and we are even farther away from figuring out how life started than we were 5 years ago.

*grammatical esl terror following*
Preferably sites like "PharmWiki" that give a very structural, Wikipedia-like oversight over all the processes and what can interact/interfere with it.
So not a site that has articles on them but actual data, illustrations, explanations and so on. Kind of like kenhub.

https://tmedweb.tulane.edu/pharmwiki/doku.php/start

trigger'd?

Is it scientifically possible for an alien species with a completely different anatomy (e.g. tentacles and ovipositors) to use human girls wombs to get pregnant and give birth?

Seriously if you didn't study math in France you are unironically NGMI in this field. Any argument against this is pure cope. Just look at a basic M1 syllabus : http://mathematiques.ens-lyon.fr/master-2-234092.kjsp?RH=1393855922439&RF=1403617207802.

As a retard, I ask. What the fuck is a ring and what is ring theory. Give me some basics.

why by the course of history nouns completely lose their primal meaning and become stand-alone words with basically no meaning

is the etymology even real sciance?

confounders can potentially explain all the discrepancies in vaxxed and unvaxxed data. for instance prevalence may just be from differences in behavior. vaxxed are more scared of the disease so they will take precautions more often limiting exposure than most unvaxxed. then the differences in deaths can be from differences in quality of treatment. vaxxed are more affluent on average so have access to better hospitals. better hospitals means less likely to die and early measures that keep patients out of the icu in the first place. there may also be a bias that creeps in when doctors treat patients. a lot of doctors are probably not very fond of anti-vaxxers and see them as a problem so these feelings mat creep in when they're treating patients. maybe on some animal instinct level want the unvaxxed to die. until these confounders are accounted for all the stats that show discrepancies, just show discrepancies and nothing more.

Is this the death of higher education in America?