Immortality Discovered

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Teat gland are not part of the interstitia, Robert.

"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night

Teat glands, mammary fun pillows, are most certainly linked to the interstitium, but are not alleged to be part of is as an organ.

Mammary glands are not part of the interstitia. The interstitia has no glands at all.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted infantile fixation...

Grow up.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Teat gland are not part of the interstitia, Robert.

"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night

Teat glands, mammary fun pillows, are most certainly linked to the interstitium, but are not alleged to be part of is as an organ.

Mammary glands are not part of the interstitia. The interstitia has no glands at all.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted infantile fixation...

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
[b]Reality "Debunked"...deleted irrelevant material...
...deleted mindless repetition...

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Teat gland are not part of the interstitia, Robert.

"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night

Teat glands, mammary fun pillows, are most certainly linked to the interstitium, but are not alleged to be part of is as an organ.

Mammary glands are not part of the interstitia. The interstitia has no glands at all.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted infantile fixation...

Grow up.

You do not make yourself any more credible as a "chemist" by insisting that I am NOT a "chemist".

By attempting to belittle and dismiss all that makes me credible among the scientific community, you simply beg the question of what makes YOU credible at all among ANY community.

You belittle and dismiss the scientific journals where my chemistry discoveries were published. "Nature is a shit rag." And as for my major pub in the journal Biogeochemistry? "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'."

You simply beg the question of which MORE credible journals YOUR discoveries were published in.

There is no such thing as pyrotechnic chemistry.

You belittle and dismiss the academic institutions where I earned advanced degrees. UC Berkeley and UC Davis are not good enough to impress you as a place where I could have learned any legitimate chemistry.

You simply beg the question of which MORE scientifically credible institutions of higher learning YOU acquired YOUR "chemistry" training from. Was your high school really a place where the chemistry instruction was far superior to UC Berkeley or UC Davis. At least they didn't teach you COMMIE chemistry!

You belittle and dismiss the value of my credentials and academic training. Master's degree, doctorate, post doctoral research. You simply beg the question of what makes your high school diploma and "license" from the Feds and State government to play with pyrotechnics so superior as a credentials that validate you are a "chemist".

You belittle and dismiss the value of my contribution to advancing science and technology. Meh! So I engineered a new lab method that replaced the Kjeldahl digest used in thousands of laboratories for most of a century. So I discovered a "New Cog in the Nitrogen Cycle". So I made a major contribution in evolutionary biology regarding the biogeochemistry of polyphenols in the plant's "extended" phenotype... Of course, it begs the question of what YOU have ever contributed, beyond pretty fireworks, that any scientist would praise you for.

You belittle and dismiss the value of my teaching experience as a chemistry instructor in college. The value of my invited presentations at prestigious conferences. The value of the chemistry teaching tool I developed, displayed on this very website, which you cannot comprehend enough to know how to attack. It begs the question of what YOU have ever done to teach chemistry to others. What you post on this website isn't worth squat as a chemistry lesson. Maybe you got to attend in the audience at a fireworks seminar, but you never learned the language to be able to give any kind of chemistry presentation or lesson to anyone, anywhere, ever.

You never learned enough chemistry "buzzwords" to even bluff it.

You have to insist that there is simply NO SUCH THING.

So, if you succeed at setting the bar SO HIGH that not even someone such as myself qualifies as a "chemist". Okay, you excluded me from that incredibly selective club. What makes you think they let YOU in? You needed to lower that bar a whole lot, not raise it.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Gee thanks guys for bumping the thread!

While I wait for my immortality to kick in, I got some more cover songs.

Rumor has it these songs are saying the same thing I am, albeit in a more esoteric fashion.

But I'm sure the original singers would never admit it. They pretend they thought of these songs on their own.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't expect to get to immortality, but it is nice having the quality of my mortality improved.
...deleted cross spam and whining...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I don't expect to get to immortality, but it is nice having the quality of my mortality improved.
...deleted cross spam and whining...

Cross spamming and whining isn't going to improve your life, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
I REFUSE to publish anything more about the INTERSTITIUM on this website until YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) is 86 by one means or another.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I REFUSE to publish anything more about the INTERSTITIUM on this website until YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) is 86 by one means or another.

Good. You don't know what it is anyway.

Redefinition fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Dearly Beloved by Bad Religion

https://youtube.com/shorts/YeIjRNDbstQ?si=tHAqIz7bH8678YKj

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Dearly Beloved by Bad Religion

https://youtube.com/shorts/YeIjRNDbstQ?si=tHAqIz7bH8678YKj

Thank you for sharing that. I think.

Again, I PRAISE the way you opened this thread, framing it as a Google inquiry.

I think it remains as an excellent model for presenting information in discussion.

Telomerase is an enzyme that maintains chromosome length and stability by adding repetitive DNA sequences (telomeres) to the ends of chromosomes. By preventing telomere shortening during cell division, it allows cells to bypass aging and replicate indefinitely.

Telomerase counteracts the "end-replication problem"—the inability of standard DNA machinery to fully duplicate the ends of linear chromosomes.

Its primary functions and roles include:

Cellular Immortality: Telomerase is highly active in stem cells, germ cells (like sperm and egg), and white blood cells, which allows them to constantly divide and replenish the body without aging.

Preventing Senescence: By replenishing lost telomere DNA, it prevents cells from reaching the Hayflick limit (the point where cells stop dividing and die).

Cancer Proliferation: In approximately 85% to 95% of human cancers, telomerase becomes abnormally reactivated. This grants cancer cells the ability to divide endlessly without their telomeres deteriorating.

Extra-telomeric Functions: Beyond lengthening DNA, telomerase is involved in modulating gene expression (such as the Wnt signaling pathway), repairing damaged DNA, and protecting mitochondrial integrity.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Dearly Beloved by Bad Religion

https://youtube.com/shorts/YeIjRNDbstQ?si=tHAqIz7bH8678YKj

Thank you for sharing that. I think.

Again, I PRAISE the way you opened this thread, framing it as a Google inquiry.

I think it remains as an excellent model for presenting information in discussion.

You betcha. The main revelation of this thread is to advise people of my theory of the dangers of giving their piss away to parasites. Said parasites are colloquially referred to, by me, as: YOU

It seems there is a universal law, people consent to this theft, by engaging in the process of orgasm. I'm sure everybody over the age of 12 is familiar with this sensation, like getting their guts tied in knots. I happen to think this universal law is lacking informed consent, which is why I do sometimes get a little bit zealous with my posting.

Urea is an important shield against an acidic environment.

Said environment will eventually expose everybody to cancer, and without a strong enough shield of urea, human cells cannot survive the acidic nature of cancer. Certainly, quitting orgasms is a necessity for surviving cancer.

As posted in the opening thread, it seems cancer is truly benevolent, the key to immortality, because it reactivates cells' telomerase. Human cells suffer from shrinking telomerase each time they divide.

And now, for reference, here is the AI synopsis of telomerase, which I find a helpful read when trying to quickly grasp a new subject.

Telomerase is an enzyme that maintains chromosome length and stability by adding repetitive DNA sequences (telomeres) to the ends of chromosomes. By preventing telomere shortening during cell division, it allows cells to bypass aging and replicate indefinitely.

Telomerase counteracts the "end-replication problem"—the inability of standard DNA machinery to fully duplicate the ends of linear chromosomes.

Its primary functions and roles include:

Cellular Immortality: Telomerase is highly active in stem cells, germ cells (like sperm and egg), and white blood cells, which allows them to constantly divide and replenish the body without aging.

Preventing Senescence: By replenishing lost telomere DNA, it prevents cells from reaching the Hayflick limit (the point where cells stop dividing and die).

Cancer Proliferation: In approximately 85% to 95% of human cancers, telomerase becomes abnormally reactivated. This grants cancer cells the ability to divide endlessly without their telomeres deteriorating.

Extra-telomeric Functions: Beyond lengthening DNA, telomerase is involved in modulating gene expression (such as the Wnt signaling pathway), repairing damaged DNA, and protecting mitochondrial integrity.

Im a BM wrote:
What God-given purpose do male genitals have?

That fruit you're not supposed to eat in the Garden of Eden?

What a TEASE!

Spongy Iris wrote:
Happier Than Ever by Billie Eilish

https://youtube.com/shorts/DVA0Oea797c?si=U84D2USTft2holvc

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

This thread has only gotten a little more than 1800 "views".

While that is orders of magnitude more interest than generated by any new ransom demand from the New Messiah, I confess that it disappoints me.

Let's see what happens with another bump.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

This thread has only gotten a little more than 1800 "views".

While that is orders of magnitude more interest than generated by any new ransom demand from the New Messiah, I confess that it disappoints me.

Let's see what happens with another bump.

Ok you tempted me to post my latest cover.

The King's Cautionary Tale.

Burning Love

https://youtube.com/shorts/UumYV6KVfL0?si=O731w2KpLrl9ibi4

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

This thread has only gotten a little more than 1800 "views".

While that is orders of magnitude more interest than generated by any new ransom demand from the New Messiah, I confess that it disappoints me.

Let's see what happens with another bump.

Ok you tempted me to post my latest cover.

The King's Cautionary Tale.

Burning Love

https://youtube.com/shorts/UumYV6KVfL0?si=O731w2KpLrl9ibi4

I was trying to assess if any interest in the interstitium was being displayed in the response to this thread.

Spongy Iris, do you think it is significant that sperm cells prefer to use FRUCTOSE as the sugar they burn for energy, rather than GLUCOSE?

I know of no OTHER cells in the human body that do this.

Why does God make sperm use a different sugar than our other cells?

As an evolutionary biologist, this one has me kind of stumped.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

This thread has only gotten a little more than 1800 "views".

While that is orders of magnitude more interest than generated by any new ransom demand from the New Messiah, I confess that it disappoints me.

Let's see what happens with another bump.

Ok you tempted me to post my latest cover.

The King's Cautionary Tale.

Burning Love

https://youtube.com/shorts/UumYV6KVfL0?si=O731w2KpLrl9ibi4

I was trying to assess if any interest in the interstitium was being displayed in the response to this thread.

Spongy Iris, do you think it is significant that sperm cells prefer to use FRUCTOSE as the sugar they burn for energy, rather than GLUCOSE?

I know of no OTHER cells in the human body that do this.

Why does God make sperm use a different sugar than our other cells?

As an evolutionary biologist, this one has me kind of stumped.

Hmm... could it be because fructose is slower to ferment than glucose?

If sperm is like cancer, its objective is growth, not maximizing energy production, like a parasite's objective would be. Of course, it makes sense that the objective of a sperm is growth when joining with an egg to grow a baby

Fermenting sugar is how cancer grows, so fructose would be longer lasting fuel than glucose.

Reposted from earlier in the thread:

Interesting fact about cancer cells: they do not use oxygen to burn energy like human cells do. They ferment sugar.

That is a way less efficient way of generating energy, yielding just about 6% of the amount of energy that burning sugar with oxygen would.

But the fermentation process works way faster, and prioritizes growth, rather than maximizing energy consumption.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

This thread has only gotten a little more than 1800 "views".

While that is orders of magnitude more interest than generated by any new ransom demand from the New Messiah, I confess that it disappoints me.

Let's see what happens with another bump.

Ok you tempted me to post my latest cover.

The King's Cautionary Tale.

Burning Love

https://youtube.com/shorts/UumYV6KVfL0?si=O731w2KpLrl9ibi4

I was trying to assess if any interest in the interstitium was being displayed in the response to this thread.

Spongy Iris, do you think it is significant that sperm cells prefer to use FRUCTOSE as the sugar they burn for energy, rather than GLUCOSE?

I know of no OTHER cells in the human body that do this.

Why does God make sperm use a different sugar than our other cells?

As an evolutionary biologist, this one has me kind of stumped.

Hmm... could it be because fructose is slower to ferment than glucose?

If sperm is like cancer, its objective is growth, not maximizing energy production, like a parasite's objective would be. Of course, it makes sense that the objective of a sperm is growth when joining with an egg to grow a baby

Fermenting sugar is how cancer grows, so fructose would be longer lasting fuel than glucose.

Reposted from earlier in the thread:

Interesting fact about cancer cells: they do not use oxygen to burn energy like human cells do. They ferment sugar.

That is a way less efficient way of generating energy, yielding just about 6% of the amount of energy that burning sugar with oxygen would.

But the fermentation process works way faster, and prioritizes growth, rather than maximizing energy consumption.

Multiple theories are proposed, none of which I find very plausible.

The most prominent explanation gaining traction is very much in line with fructose being less likely to "ferment" than glucose.

Microorganisms in general are more likely to be able to feed on semen as a food source if it had glucose rather than fructose as the sugar in it. But many thousands of species of bacteria and fungi are quite capable of using fructose.

The main theory is that by making semen less exploitable as a microbial food source, reducing the number of species that can easily use it for food, it has a better chance of feeding a sperm cell than an infectious microbe.

Another theory is that fructose will have a longer shelf life in solution than glucose, for the hours-long journey for a sperm to find an egg. When a male fish ejaculates all over a female fish's eggs, those sperm have to find their target within minutes, not hours. I have trouble imagining how that leap was made in evolution, but it would have been in reptiles, not fish or amphibians where the extended release value of fructose over glucose might make a difference.

Reptiles were the first vertebrates to have a fun pouch for males to insert their sperm into. The first ones to have a potential fermentation chamber in their genitals where the wrong kind of sugar in semen might make a difference with adverse impacts. Sperm cells CAN use glucose. But male bodies load semen with fructose for them instead.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard resigns, citing her husband Abraham's recent diagnosis of bone cancer.

It may be worth mentioning again, a bone marrow transplant can transform the DNA of the recipient to match the donor, just in the semen of the recipient (but not the sperm).

Strong chains linking bone marrow to sement.

They keep fighting to the last tooth and nail!

This thread has only gotten a little more than 1800 "views".

While that is orders of magnitude more interest than generated by any new ransom demand from the New Messiah, I confess that it disappoints me.

Let's see what happens with another bump.

Ok you tempted me to post my latest cover.

The King's Cautionary Tale.

Burning Love

https://youtube.com/shorts/UumYV6KVfL0?si=O731w2KpLrl9ibi4

I was trying to assess if any interest in the interstitium was being displayed in the response to this thread.

Spongy Iris, do you think it is significant that sperm cells prefer to use FRUCTOSE as the sugar they burn for energy, rather than GLUCOSE?

I know of no OTHER cells in the human body that do this.

Why does God make sperm use a different sugar than our other cells?

As an evolutionary biologist, this one has me kind of stumped.

Hmm... could it be because fructose is slower to ferment than glucose?

If sperm is like cancer, its objective is growth, not maximizing energy production, like a parasite's objective would be. Of course, it makes sense that the objective of a sperm is growth when joining with an egg to grow a baby

Fermenting sugar is how cancer grows, so fructose would be longer lasting fuel than glucose.

Reposted from earlier in the thread:

Interesting fact about cancer cells: they do not use oxygen to burn energy like human cells do. They ferment sugar.

That is a way less efficient way of generating energy, yielding just about 6% of the amount of energy that burning sugar with oxygen would.

But the fermentation process works way faster, and prioritizes growth, rather than maximizing energy consumption.

Multiple theories are proposed, none of which I find very plausible.

The most prominent explanation gaining traction is very much in line with fructose being less likely to "ferment" than glucose.

Microorganisms in general are more likely to be able to feed on semen as a food source if it had glucose rather than fructose as the sugar in it. But many thousands of species of bacteria and fungi are quite capable of using fructose.

The main theory is that by making semen less exploitable as a microbial food source, reducing the number of species that can easily use it for food, it has a better chance of feeding a sperm cell than an infectious microbe.

Another theory is that fructose will have a longer shelf life in solution than glucose, for the hours-long journey for a sperm to find an egg. When a male fish ejaculates all over a female fish's eggs, those sperm have to find their target within minutes, not hours. I have trouble imagining how that leap was made in evolution, but it would have been in reptiles, not fish or amphibians where the extended release value of fructose over glucose might make a difference.

Reptiles were the first vertebrates to have a fun pouch for males to insert their sperm into. The first ones to have a potential fermentation chamber in their genitals where the wrong kind of sugar in semen might make a difference with adverse impacts. Sperm cells CAN use glucose. But male bodies load semen with fructose for them instead.

Hmm... most prominent explanation gives the same answer as mine, but different reasoning.

I was suspecting fructose to be a better fuel source, if an organism uses it for fuel by fermenting it, because it would last longer.

By my reasoning, even better than fructose would be sucrose, then starch.

I hadn't considered it was preferred because it was a better defense against micro organisms.

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

I think semen is what hijacks sperm to transport it, otherwise it wouldn't leave the body.

So semen seems like the overall preservative during transport. I think for now I'm gonna stick with the idea that fructose is more significant for its use as fuel for growth than it is the main preservative of sperm traveling to impregnate an egg.

Fructose is a good food preservative, but I think something like 95% of an ejaculate is semen, so this seems like the main line of defense against microorganisms during transport.

That said, my position is the best preservative of sperm is not to transport it, but retain it. Do that for long enough, and I think all semen will get excreted as waste, no longer serving any purpose.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

I think semen is what hijacks sperm to transport it, otherwise it wouldn't leave the body.

So semen seems like the overall preservative during transport. I think for now I'm gonna stick with the idea that fructose is more significant for its use as fuel for growth than it is the main preservative of sperm traveling to impregnate an egg.

Fructose is a good food preservative, but I think something like 95% of an ejaculate is semen, so this seems like the main line of defense against microorganisms during transport.

That said, my position is the best preservative of sperm is not to transport it, but retain it. Do that for long enough, and I think all semen will get excreted as waste, no longer serving any purpose.

I forgot to mention the PROSTATE CANCER connection to fructose in semen.

Prostate cancer doesn't render men incapable of reproducing until well after the age they should have already fathered children. Humans didn't even live long enough to get prostate cancer in most cases. It is no risk to reproductive success to have a self destructive trait in the related genes, as long as it doesn't bring on the cancer until late in life.

What does Google say in response to the inquiry: "Prostate cancer and fructose in semen"?

Google say: "In healthy men, seminal fructose is a vital energy source for sperm motility and is produced primarily by the seminal vesicles. For men with prostate cancer, however, research indicates that these cancer cells can upregulate certain fructose transporters (like Glut5) to utilize fructose as an alternative metabolic fuel source, which promotes tumor growth and agressiveness."

Our seminal vesicles supply the prostate cancer with the fuel to kill us with.

As the genius evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, late-acting lethal genes cannot be selected against in evolution if they don't kick in until after the organism has passed peak reproductive age.

As social animals, humans have another reproductive success variable that extends beyond peak reproductive years. Post menopausal women may not be able to have more babies, but they can care for grandchildren and thereby further enhance their reproductive success. This may have even helped select AGAINST some of those late-acting lethal genes. We live a LOT longer than most mammals, and even longer than most social mammals.

Selection against prostate cancer could arise from older men maintaining their position of wealth and power in society, with greater reproductive success for their progeny arising from their increased longevity, decades after they no longer father any new children.

It becomes a chicken and egg question, quite literally, in evolutionary biology.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

I think semen is what hijacks sperm to transport it, otherwise it wouldn't leave the body.

So semen seems like the overall preservative during transport. I think for now I'm gonna stick with the idea that fructose is more significant for its use as fuel for growth than it is the main preservative of sperm traveling to impregnate an egg.

Fructose is a good food preservative, but I think something like 95% of an ejaculate is semen, so this seems like the main line of defense against microorganisms during transport.

That said, my position is the best preservative of sperm is not to transport it, but retain it. Do that for long enough, and I think all semen will get excreted as waste, no longer serving any purpose.

I forgot to mention the PROSTATE CANCER connection to fructose in semen.

Prostate cancer doesn't render men incapable of reproducing until well after the age they should have already fathered children. Humans didn't even live long enough to get prostate cancer in most cases. It is no risk to reproductive success to have a self destructive trait in the related genes, as long as it doesn't bring on the cancer until late in life.

What does Google say in response to the inquiry: "Prostate cancer and fructose in semen"?

Google say: "In healthy men, seminal fructose is a vital energy source for sperm motility and is produced primarily by the seminal vesicles. For men with prostate cancer, however, research indicates that these cancer cells can upregulate certain fructose transporters (like Glut5) to utilize fructose as an alternative metabolic fuel source, which promotes tumor growth and agressiveness."

Our seminal vesicles supply the prostate cancer with the fuel to kill us with.

As the genius evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, late-acting lethal genes cannot be selected against in evolution if they don't kick in until after the organism has passed peak reproductive age.

As social animals, humans have another reproductive success variable that extends beyond peak reproductive years. Post menopausal women may not be able to have more babies, but they can care for grandchildren and thereby further enhance their reproductive success. This may have even helped select AGAINST some of those late-acting lethal genes. We live a LOT longer than most mammals, and even longer than most social mammals.

Selection against prostate cancer could arise from older men maintaining their position of wealth and power in society, with greater reproductive success for their progeny arising from their increased longevity, decades after they no longer father any new children.

It becomes a chicken and egg question, quite literally, in evolutionary biology.

I love high fructose corn syrup. Sprite or 7up are my favorites.

Fructose is synthesized just in the liver, and doesn't trigger insulin production like glucose does.

Looks like we have come full circle to my starting position of the thread: cancer being the key to immortality.

Cancer cells can split without losing telomere length, thus they can regenerate indefinitely.

Everybody who lives long enough will get cancer.

And studies indicate, men who ejaculate less trigger prostate cancer sooner in life.

By quitting orgasms altogether, it seems the body can develop a urea shield, to protect against the acidic nature of cancer cells, allowing for a successful union of cancer cells with the human body.

As touched upon in our latest tangent, it seems there is a link between sperm or eggs and cancer. Coincidentally, or perhaps the phrase synchronistically works better, the numerical symbol for cancer is 69.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

I think semen is what hijacks sperm to transport it, otherwise it wouldn't leave the body.

So semen seems like the overall preservative during transport. I think for now I'm gonna stick with the idea that fructose is more significant for its use as fuel for growth than it is the main preservative of sperm traveling to impregnate an egg.

Fructose is a good food preservative, but I think something like 95% of an ejaculate is semen, so this seems like the main line of defense against microorganisms during transport.

That said, my position is the best preservative of sperm is not to transport it, but retain it. Do that for long enough, and I think all semen will get excreted as waste, no longer serving any purpose.

I forgot to mention the PROSTATE CANCER connection to fructose in semen.

Prostate cancer doesn't render men incapable of reproducing until well after the age they should have already fathered children. Humans didn't even live long enough to get prostate cancer in most cases. It is no risk to reproductive success to have a self destructive trait in the related genes, as long as it doesn't bring on the cancer until late in life.

What does Google say in response to the inquiry: "Prostate cancer and fructose in semen"?

Google say: "In healthy men, seminal fructose is a vital energy source for sperm motility and is produced primarily by the seminal vesicles. For men with prostate cancer, however, research indicates that these cancer cells can upregulate certain fructose transporters (like Glut5) to utilize fructose as an alternative metabolic fuel source, which promotes tumor growth and agressiveness."

Our seminal vesicles supply the prostate cancer with the fuel to kill us with.

As the genius evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, late-acting lethal genes cannot be selected against in evolution if they don't kick in until after the organism has passed peak reproductive age.

As social animals, humans have another reproductive success variable that extends beyond peak reproductive years. Post menopausal women may not be able to have more babies, but they can care for grandchildren and thereby further enhance their reproductive success. This may have even helped select AGAINST some of those late-acting lethal genes. We live a LOT longer than most mammals, and even longer than most social mammals.

Selection against prostate cancer could arise from older men maintaining their position of wealth and power in society, with greater reproductive success for their progeny arising from their increased longevity, decades after they no longer father any new children.

It becomes a chicken and egg question, quite literally, in evolutionary biology.

I love high fructose corn syrup. Sprite or 7up are my favorites.

Fructose is synthesized just in the liver, and doesn't trigger insulin production like glucose does.

Looks like we have come full circle to my starting position of the thread: cancer being the key to immortality.

Cancer cells can split without losing telomere length, thus they can regenerate indefinitely.

Everybody who lives long enough will get cancer.

And studies indicate, men who ejaculate less trigger prostate cancer sooner in life.

By quitting orgasms altogether, it seems the body can develop a urea shield, to protect against the acidic nature of cancer cells, allowing for a successful union of cancer cells with the human body.

As touched upon in our latest tangent, it seems there is a link between sperm or eggs and cancer. Coincidentally, or perhaps the phrase synchronistically works better, the numerical symbol for cancer is 69.

150 new "Views" in a day and a half. This thread is getting more attention than any New Messiah threads did in the past week. It appears that those who merely look far outnumber those who actually post anything.

I'm not convinced that a "urea shield" is particularly helpful. Uric acid forms troublesome crystals that can cause gout, among other problems. When the interstitium gets dried out somewhere to the point of desperately sucking in urine as a source of water, it is not a healthy sign. The body makes the effort to get rid of urea because it is toxic, although far less toxic than uric acid or ammonia. That excess amino nitrogen from our protein-rich diets gets expelled as urea because there is nothing of value the body can do with it, and it has harmful side effects.

Fructose is in our diet, as free sugar in fruit, etc. Fructose is also released when sucrose is broken into its fructose and glucose subunits. The liver is where fructose taken into our guts can be METABOLIZED (rather than synthesized). Other than liver cells, sperm cells are just about the only ones in the body that can use fructose.

Buffering against acid is usually accomplished in the body using bicarbonate ion.

Your urea as an acid buffer theory puzzles me in terms of chemical mechanism.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

I think semen is what hijacks sperm to transport it, otherwise it wouldn't leave the body.

So semen seems like the overall preservative during transport. I think for now I'm gonna stick with the idea that fructose is more significant for its use as fuel for growth than it is the main preservative of sperm traveling to impregnate an egg.

Fructose is a good food preservative, but I think something like 95% of an ejaculate is semen, so this seems like the main line of defense against microorganisms during transport.

That said, my position is the best preservative of sperm is not to transport it, but retain it. Do that for long enough, and I think all semen will get excreted as waste, no longer serving any purpose.

I forgot to mention the PROSTATE CANCER connection to fructose in semen.

Prostate cancer doesn't render men incapable of reproducing until well after the age they should have already fathered children. Humans didn't even live long enough to get prostate cancer in most cases. It is no risk to reproductive success to have a self destructive trait in the related genes, as long as it doesn't bring on the cancer until late in life.

What does Google say in response to the inquiry: "Prostate cancer and fructose in semen"?

Google say: "In healthy men, seminal fructose is a vital energy source for sperm motility and is produced primarily by the seminal vesicles. For men with prostate cancer, however, research indicates that these cancer cells can upregulate certain fructose transporters (like Glut5) to utilize fructose as an alternative metabolic fuel source, which promotes tumor growth and agressiveness."

Our seminal vesicles supply the prostate cancer with the fuel to kill us with.

As the genius evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, late-acting lethal genes cannot be selected against in evolution if they don't kick in until after the organism has passed peak reproductive age.

As social animals, humans have another reproductive success variable that extends beyond peak reproductive years. Post menopausal women may not be able to have more babies, but they can care for grandchildren and thereby further enhance their reproductive success. This may have even helped select AGAINST some of those late-acting lethal genes. We live a LOT longer than most mammals, and even longer than most social mammals.

Selection against prostate cancer could arise from older men maintaining their position of wealth and power in society, with greater reproductive success for their progeny arising from their increased longevity, decades after they no longer father any new children.

It becomes a chicken and egg question, quite literally, in evolutionary biology.

I love high fructose corn syrup. Sprite or 7up are my favorites.

Fructose is synthesized just in the liver, and doesn't trigger insulin production like glucose does.

Looks like we have come full circle to my starting position of the thread: cancer being the key to immortality.

Cancer cells can split without losing telomere length, thus they can regenerate indefinitely.

Everybody who lives long enough will get cancer.

And studies indicate, men who ejaculate less trigger prostate cancer sooner in life.

By quitting orgasms altogether, it seems the body can develop a urea shield, to protect against the acidic nature of cancer cells, allowing for a successful union of cancer cells with the human body.

As touched upon in our latest tangent, it seems there is a link between sperm or eggs and cancer. Coincidentally, or perhaps the phrase synchronistically works better, the numerical symbol for cancer is 69.

150 new "Views" in a day and a half. This thread is getting more attention than any New Messiah threads did in the past week. It appears that those who merely look far outnumber those who actually post anything.

I'm not convinced that a "urea shield" is particularly helpful. Uric acid forms troublesome crystals that can cause gout, among other problems. When the interstitium gets dried out somewhere to the point of desperately sucking in urine as a source of water, it is not a healthy sign. The body makes the effort to get rid of urea because it is toxic, although far less toxic than uric acid or ammonia. That excess amino nitrogen from our protein-rich diets gets expelled as urea because there is nothing of value the body can do with it, and it has harmful side effects.

Fructose is in our diet, as free sugar in fruit, etc. Fructose is also released when sucrose is broken into its fructose and glucose subunits. The liver is where fructose taken into our guts can be METABOLIZED (rather than synthesized). Other than liver cells, sperm cells are just about the only ones in the body that can use fructose.

Buffering against acid is usually accomplished in the body using bicarbonate ion.

Your urea as an acid buffer theory puzzles me in terms of chemical mechanism.

Ah yes... metabolized.

Perhaps consider...

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the bacteria in the stomach that survives the stomach's harsh, acidic environment by producing an enzyme called urease. This enzyme breaks down the urea naturally present... creating ammonia and carbon dioxide. The ammonia forms a localized cloud that neutralizes the surrounding stomach acid, allowing the bacteria to thrive.

The indications I consider, showing somehow a urease shield is now working for me, instead of against me, is I have cured my acid reflux, and my skin is softer and more golden now.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I'm going to shift my rejection of the dominant theory from "implausible" to "unlikely".

The challenge in natural selection when vertebrates evolve to insert a penis into a pouch for fertilization, rather than blow a load in open water, just millimeters from the target eggs.

Those sperm cells have to stay alive and keep swimming far enough to find the egg hidden deep in the female fun pouch. Nature's first iteration of the vagina was called a "sewer" in latin ("cloaca"), because a single orifice was used for shitting, pissing, and boning. Not the cleanest place for a load of semen to find itself in. Plenty of microorganisms, aerobic and anaerobic, could find their way in there if they aren't already growing there.

So, I shift my skepticism from "implausible" to "unlikely" to consider how natural selection not only favored providing an energy source in the semen for the hours-long journey, it also favored using a sugar less likely to result in toxic shock from rotting upon decomposition by microorganisms.

It required a DOUBLE leap. Sperm cells had to mutate to be able to use fructose, and glands had to mutate/evolve to produce fructose and add it to the semen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there may be a simpler explanation.

I think semen is what hijacks sperm to transport it, otherwise it wouldn't leave the body.

So semen seems like the overall preservative during transport. I think for now I'm gonna stick with the idea that fructose is more significant for its use as fuel for growth than it is the main preservative of sperm traveling to impregnate an egg.

Fructose is a good food preservative, but I think something like 95% of an ejaculate is semen, so this seems like the main line of defense against microorganisms during transport.

That said, my position is the best preservative of sperm is not to transport it, but retain it. Do that for long enough, and I think all semen will get excreted as waste, no longer serving any purpose.

I forgot to mention the PROSTATE CANCER connection to fructose in semen.

Prostate cancer doesn't render men incapable of reproducing until well after the age they should have already fathered children. Humans didn't even live long enough to get prostate cancer in most cases. It is no risk to reproductive success to have a self destructive trait in the related genes, as long as it doesn't bring on the cancer until late in life.

What does Google say in response to the inquiry: "Prostate cancer and fructose in semen"?

Google say: "In healthy men, seminal fructose is a vital energy source for sperm motility and is produced primarily by the seminal vesicles. For men with prostate cancer, however, research indicates that these cancer cells can upregulate certain fructose transporters (like Glut5) to utilize fructose as an alternative metabolic fuel source, which promotes tumor growth and agressiveness."

Our seminal vesicles supply the prostate cancer with the fuel to kill us with.

As the genius evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, late-acting lethal genes cannot be selected against in evolution if they don't kick in until after the organism has passed peak reproductive age.

As social animals, humans have another reproductive success variable that extends beyond peak reproductive years. Post menopausal women may not be able to have more babies, but they can care for grandchildren and thereby further enhance their reproductive success. This may have even helped select AGAINST some of those late-acting lethal genes. We live a LOT longer than most mammals, and even longer than most social mammals.

Selection against prostate cancer could arise from older men maintaining their position of wealth and power in society, with greater reproductive success for their progeny arising from their increased longevity, decades after they no longer father any new children.

It becomes a chicken and egg question, quite literally, in evolutionary biology.

I love high fructose corn syrup. Sprite or 7up are my favorites.

Fructose is synthesized just in the liver, and doesn't trigger insulin production like glucose does.

Looks like we have come full circle to my starting position of the thread: cancer being the key to immortality.

Cancer cells can split without losing telomere length, thus they can regenerate indefinitely.

Everybody who lives long enough will get cancer.

And studies indicate, men who ejaculate less trigger prostate cancer sooner in life.

By quitting orgasms altogether, it seems the body can develop a urea shield, to protect against the acidic nature of cancer cells, allowing for a successful union of cancer cells with the human body.

As touched upon in our latest tangent, it seems there is a link between sperm or eggs and cancer. Coincidentally, or perhaps the phrase synchronistically works better, the numerical symbol for cancer is 69.

150 new "Views" in a day and a half. This thread is getting more attention than any New Messiah threads did in the past week. It appears that those who merely look far outnumber those who actually post anything.

I'm not convinced that a "urea shield" is particularly helpful. Uric acid forms troublesome crystals that can cause gout, among other problems. When the interstitium gets dried out somewhere to the point of desperately sucking in urine as a source of water, it is not a healthy sign. The body makes the effort to get rid of urea because it is toxic, although far less toxic than uric acid or ammonia. That excess amino nitrogen from our protein-rich diets gets expelled as urea because there is nothing of value the body can do with it, and it has harmful side effects.

Fructose is in our diet, as free sugar in fruit, etc. Fructose is also released when sucrose is broken into its fructose and glucose subunits. The liver is where fructose taken into our guts can be METABOLIZED (rather than synthesized). Other than liver cells, sperm cells are just about the only ones in the body that can use fructose.

Buffering against acid is usually accomplished in the body using bicarbonate ion.

Your urea as an acid buffer theory puzzles me in terms of chemical mechanism.

Ah yes... metabolized.

Perhaps consider...

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the bacteria in the stomach that survives the stomach's harsh, acidic environment by producing an enzyme called urease. This enzyme breaks down the urea naturally present... creating ammonia and carbon dioxide. The ammonia forms a localized cloud that neutralizes the surrounding stomach acid, allowing the bacteria to thrive.

The indications I consider, showing somehow a urease shield is now working for me, instead of against me, is I have cured my acid reflux, and my skin is softer and more golden now.