And you don’t get more than you know.
Aargh. And I just returned insult for insult. Again.
It’s your chief argument. Don’t throw it away now.
It’s a major strongpoint of yours, as well – don’t deny it.
See? It’s the “I know you are, but what am I?” defense.
At least we’re consistent. (…not a good thing, in context.)
Settle down, boys, or I’ll turn you into newts!
The press has often been guilty of misrepresenting all non-coding DNA as junk DNA, even though these are different concepts and not considered equivalent in the very studies they reference. All junk DNA is non-coding DNA, but not all non-coding DNA is junk DNA.
They’ll get better.
Who can best relate the topic of “codes” to the Joshua’s work?
Im having a problem seeing the connection.