Thoughts?

but it does happen in bacteria just without a nucleus and you're right it's more complicated than that most of the time (eg. introns and exons)

youtube.com/watch?v=laR-GpSPTTU

I meant bacteria with the enzyme reverse transcriptase which contradicts the whole central dogma thing since RNA is converted back into DNA. I believe the enzyme is present in most bacteria as an energy conservation type thing. I mostly only know about it from its practices in PCR though.

Splicing is also pretty spoopy in eukaryotic protein synthesis.

scientists should be educated in humanities before speaking

Retrovirus don't cuck Central dogma. It's positive RNA virus like rubella that cucks it.

Retrovirus follows Central dogma

Not as spooky as mi RNA . Man those are one stealthy fuckers

You're an idiot who isn't even making an argument. I'm entitled to my own opinion so don't try arguing with me.

I recall in my first year they covered their bases by saying the arrow between RNA and DNA can go both ways.

They were adamant however in saying once it goes to amino acids, it cant go back to nucleic acids, and to my knowledge it has remained that way.

>They were adamant however in saying once it goes to amino acids, it cant go back to nucleic acids, and to my knowledge it has remained that way.

that would be revolutionary, to find a mechanism which can produce functional DNA coding for a protein where the input is just the mature, fully folded protein.
it seems unlikely but who knows

That's not a terrible idea. Lot of cocky assholes forming their own opinions about shit, then callin me a stupid fuck. Maybe everyone should study humanities and ethics.