The discussion revolves around the claim that early humans had copper-based blood, leading to the idea of "blue blood." Participants explore the validity of this claim, referencing various sources and engaging in light-hearted banter about the nature of blood.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the original claim regarding copper-based blood. There are competing views, with some asserting it is a myth while others engage in speculative and humorous commentary.
Participants express uncertainty about the accuracy of the claim and the definitions of blood types, with references to educational backgrounds and informal sources.
Readers interested in the biology of blood, myths surrounding human physiology, or those who enjoy light-hearted discussions about science may find this thread engaging.
you see, i think blood is iron based so it is red, at least that's what they taught in my classes (year nine of a grammar schoolmatthyaouw said:
). but they also told that blood has plasma which is much of water."Dammit Jim, I'm a Physicist, not a Chemist!"matthyaouw said:
Duh guys, he knew that, can'tcha catch a joke? He was skillfully pointing out that guy's error. That blood is not hemoglobin-based, blood is not copper-based, blood is water based.matthyaouw said: