• @Cmot_Dibbler
    link
    731 year ago

    Idk enough on the subject to even start here. However, if your responding to someone in all caps and multiple HAHA’s. You’re probably already wrong in one way or another…

    • gullible
      link
      fedilink
      291 year ago

      HAHAHAHA GLOBAL WARMING’S EXISTENCE WAS CALLED INTO QUESTION EXCLUSIVELY BY THE ACTIONS OF FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES SEEKING TO POLITICIZE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO HUMANITY FOR THE SAKE OF SHORT-TERM PROFITS. CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

  • @robbotlove
    link
    531 year ago

    they’re actually called red blood not cells.

    • Spaghetti_Hitchens
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      This is why I don’t trust big hemoglobin; it’s all a conspiracy to sell more blood and make the board of directors wealthy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        And big hemoglobin get their whole supply for free. They’ve literally tricked people into GIVING it to them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So if i understand correctly, they initially have a nucleus but after the nucleus produces all the required proteins, it’s ejected.

      • @betterdeadthanreddit
        link
        English
        281 year ago

        That’s why it takes so long to regenerate them after a blood donation. Production speed is limited so all those ejected nuclei don’t set off a chain reaction and turn you into a fission bomb.

  • @piecat
    link
    -321 year ago

    Red blood cells aren’t considered true cells.

    • @kadu
      link
      591 year ago

      Biologist here. Erythrocytes are cells. Not sure where you got “true cells” from.

        • @kadu
          link
          27
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yep! You’re totally correct. They’re indeed highly specialized, it’s a chain that starts with a proerythroblast that would look more like a “normal” cell going all the way to the erythrocyte, the familiar red blood cell.

          Very frequently in biology we create definitions and groupings that get more and more specific, but without taking away from the original group: for instance, carnivores are a specific group of animals with specialized characteristics… But they’re still mammals. And mammals are still animals. And animals are still Eukaryotes. And so on.

          Cells do not follow the same type of definitions that we would use for groupings, but the logic still applies - losing a nucleus won’t make this cell suddenly not a cell. In fact, the membrane is still highly dynamic, there are still internal and external communication mechanisms, and there’s a metabolism - glycolysis.

      • @piecat
        link
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They don’t have the organelles or nucleus that most cells do have. They can’t replicate.

        I mean like most fields it depends on your definition. It doesn’t help that many people are taught they aren’t “true” cells.

        • @kadu
          link
          11 year ago

          they don’t have the organelles or nucleus

          What exactly they lose depends on the species, human red blood cells indeed discard organelles and the nucleus.

          But having organelles and a nucleus are not the formal definition of a cell. To begin with, any prokaryotes won’t have a nucleus, and organelles aren’t mandatory.