Maybe...but I doubt many of these phylogenies use DNA, and if so, likely only a single or few genes. Nowhere near enough resolution to accurately determine genetic relatedness. Woody plants may actually be more related than we think.
These sorts of phylogenies tend to use morphological characteristics which is an unreliable measure of genetic relatedness.
I will stand corrected if wrong though
Teams is the most reliably unreliable piece of software.
Lol what are you on about. There is an entire body of active philosophical work about the meaning of life: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2024&q=meaning+of+life+philosophy&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
So true, my grandma always said this
Undoubtedly. There's not many games I'd put above it.
Johnny Silverhand did nothing wrong.
Great artistic vision with this pic. Totally dig it
True. A good way around this is to test ideas across multiple people. N=1 is just bad science.
And also asking: "but shit how, specifically?"
Not saying it's easy
You don't need their permission to write it up yourself
Toilets esoteric language is called Wingdungs
Not true at all. Viruses do induce cancer, likely much more than we realise. HPV is the clearest example, but also EBV and Hep B https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-019-0558-9
There are also several cancer vaccines showing success in stage 3 trials: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-023-00072-0
Heroic AF