Jarix

Yes but not in relation to my question. It did help me understand the article and the subject more than i was able to before, though i will not claim comprehension of it all.

Though i did re read the article and i did find what i twigged.

A difference between codons becoming proteins themselves, and codons causing something else to make proteins. I was just dumb and didn't read good. But you helped me figure it out by engaging me and trying to figure out how to use what you provided in all of this so...

After all i guess you did help me get to where i was trying to get to. But we learn if we try and I've learned something so thanks again kind stranger!

Okay Ojay okay. Help me out. Why are you claiming that this is the question?

"The question was: how does someone find out something is peer reviewed"

Please literally show where you see this being asked. It was not asked in the top comment, nor is it necessary to ask. I don't understand why you feel it is silly or unnecessary as it is very clearly used for a specific purpose when i read the top comment.

~~Again you are wrong. It was not the question of the top comment you responded to. That was a follow up question that is irrelevant because the comment you that started this discussion cleanly clearly and unambiguously removed any need to discuss how to find out if something is peer reviewed by the first words they started the comment with.~~

~~If it is peer reviewed...~~

~~And they gave an example of something that you could do to further verify a peer reviewed paper. You can replicate the experiment and get the same results but then offered an example where there might be a problem with only reproducing the results, to them anyway~~

Ooph...

No one said it wasn't correct... Why did you even bring that up?!? You accused the person you first replied to it, describing a process that isn't the peer review process, skipping that they used the process they described only on something that is already peer reviewed...

I was(perhaps a poor attempt) trying to be a bit silly but pointing out a mistake you made accusing them of something they didnt do. But you just dont want to let it go and keep drilling deeper. Its quite surprising to me you can't just say, oh whoops, and carry on

Whoa whoa whoa, i didn't say no kids just the good ones that can do the work of all the ones not needed. And no we didn't pay them more, less actually, since we have to re coup the cost of the new hardware. Don't talk crazy talk

I also🤷‍♀️ :p

Honestly, i can't follow, i didn't have enough of an education in biology to understand what's happening. Not unusual for me barely graduating highschool 25 years ago with no biology class, but i like to try and follow technical things even when i know they are or might be beyond my comprehension. Articles online are just getting filled with more actual errors in writing that it's getting harder to tell when there's a problem with the word out im not understanding(welcome to aging as an uneducated middle ager everyone!)

I was never the worst at English though, and it seems like they said the same thing but used the word But when they started to say it the second time.

"Codons can make proteins. But codons can make proteins" is horribly reduced but essentially how i read it

Appreciate you taking the the to respond

Your reasoning doesn't matter if it's being applied to the wrong problem.

This is not about OP.

I'm i dumb, crazy or just stupid? They said the same thing as if it was a different thing they said right?

"a codon, encodes a protein building block. These are strung together into the proteins that make up our tissues, organs, and direct the inner workings of our cells.

But the same genetic sequence, depending on its structure, can also recruit the molecules needed to turn codons into proteins. "

Okay i laughed

Has nothing to do with OPs question. You missed the very first sentence to the comment your first responded to

if its peer reviewed.

You kinda glossed right over that didnt you? Maybe an edit is in your future?