Time for me to reappear.
The moon's harm to plant life is indisputable. Only a fool would ignore the science which we have shared through first hand experimentation.
Science! What science?
Using the word in a sentence in some vain hope to embellish your statement is pretty lame.
The moon exerts a gravitational ‘force’ on the earth, the earth likewise does the same back. Our tides as we all know are the result.
To say the moon causes harm to plant life is just silly. To say it’s supported by science is ludicrous.
Like all flat earth notions they are no more than unsupported brain farts that have zero substance. Using the word science in no way changes their ‘fatty’ nature.
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Is that the one where you used the roof which was blocking moonlight to trap heat and skew the results?
What are you talking about? Also, why do you think heat would increase collenchyma? The main mechanism of increasing this is mechanical stress...
Ichi performed an experiment where he used an apparatus to block moonlight from sone plant. But he failed to realize it acted as a greenhouse. He said the plants exposed to moonlight didn’t grow as well. But his experiment was flawed. This was years ago.
lmao very wild imagination.
And yet globularists accuse me of lying when I present research that directly supports my point in snakes and transcription. 
You provided research that in no way supported your point. Where in the rattlesnake research did it support your claim that moonlight caused cellular damage?
You keep just claiming that and there is absolutely no mention of that whatsoever. Do I need to link the research you cited again so you can point out where it supports your claim?
I'm glad you agree moonlight is an environmental factor Stash. Now one step more until recant your statement of animal activity not reflecting "anything even remotely related to biology"
Where in the research you cited does it support your cellular damage claim? It doesn't exist. Stop deflecting and show us the support for your claim or admit that you completely fabricated it.
Here it is again for your convenience:
Here's the paper you cited again. Zero mention of anything cellular, let alone "damage".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis
Here's the conclusion of the paper you cited:
In conclusion, moonlight appears to play a role in shaping the activity patterns adopted by adult prairie rattlesnakes. This is not to say that moonlight is the most important factor affecting activity; rather, it is probably superseded by factors such as temperature, level of hunger, and reproductive state. However, moonlight should not be overlooked, especially when one considers the potential influence of predators on the nocturnal activity patterns of snakes, as well as the availability of the snakes' prey. We suggest that the prairie rattlesnake is only one of many snake species which suppress activity in the open on brightly moonlit nights and that moonlight avoidance may be even more pro-nounced in snake species which are strictly nocturnal.
Where does it say moonlight causes cellular damage?
So the inability to transcribe is not cellular? Please feel free to try and explain your way out of that one
Where does it say moonlight causes cellular damage?
In the first
study where you claimed "Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing." here are the facts:
- There is no mention of cellular damage, let alone caused by moonlight
- There is no mention of even examining any snake cells
In the second
study where you claimed
Yes. You repeatedly say nothing cellular was found in the reviewed and posted paper. But that is only possible if you claim transcription is not cellular
Here are the facts:
- There is no mention of cellular anything in the first study you cited
- And in the second study you cited, there is no mention of the moon, moonlight, lunar anything
- You completely made up your conclusions out of thin air, yet you continually point to studies saying they back up your claims when they do no such thing. Not even remotely.
How in the world do you arrive at the notion that moonlight causes cellular damage when the study doesn't even mention moonlight as an environmental factor or otherwise? In short, the study doesn't have anything to do with the Moon.
Anyone can read through these studies and plainly see that they don't support anything you claim.
You have completely fabricated your conclusions based upon these studies that you cite. And you've been doing so for over a dozen years. You claim things in these studies that don't even exist.