Also, when I type 1 single messages, you've typed 5 or 6, so then the thoughts get so intermingled it's more difficult to expound on what both of us are saying

OK... then I would ask you to watch the show I liked above

Which I can do.

then we should talk about intelligence in animals

Now that that is out of the way.....................

But you also have to send me whatever studies you got your information from

Even chromosomes could be examined in a greater way with future technology, you just can't know.

otherwise I am at a disadvantage

The science of how chomosomes determing out genetic makeup is a settled science. We can study dofferent ones, and how they make us who we are. But that's all

We can study how damage to them can damage us... but that is all

Wasn't it settled at some point that the Earth was flat, or the center of the universe ?

there is nothing other than chomosomes that determine the geneticmakeup of a lifeform

That is a different science and not relevant here

We used to say it was settled science that the atom was the smallest particle.

and there are still morons that think the earth is flat.

Funnily enough, the flat-Earth movement is actually growing, lol.

Yes... we know that there are smaller particles... but at some point you DO get to pretty much the smallest one

then all you can do is study how they interact

Yeah... don't even get me started on the flat earthers!! LOL

That one is another example of the dumbing down of our educational system!

Dude, lol

There is no "some point" where the science on a matter stops and can never change.

And BTW... the smallest particles we know of are quarks... but we have known about them for a long time

They said the exact same thing about atoms.

It was a long time between atoms and quarks in terms of discovery though.

It wasn't like a few years

yes there is... it is the point at which you no longer have the ability to see the thing in question or it would be too small to exist

We have knows about quarks for at least 50 years

You can't think outside the box on something smaller than a quark ?

If a microscope is invented that can see smaller than a quark, then why not ?

Quarks are pretty frigging small... LOL.

So are atoms

if there were such particles, we do not have the ability to see them

BUT....

way to go @JunoBlade, you just advanced to level 21 <:magahat:772838503239122984>

YET

The main reason we know about such things is because we can see that there are INTERACTIONS

Why do you refuse to believe that further technology COULD change the smallest particle

unless we see interactions BELOW a subatomic level, then we will never be able to even theorize about them

Right, but you don't know that we won't see that at some point