Its not your wiki-knowledge of science I question, its your common sense.
How often does common sense apply to a comic book movie? Should I ask the guy who fights crime in an impractical manner, "beating the poor and homeless of Gotham City"?
And as it just so happens I was watching a show the other day on this very subject. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the episode, though I seem to recall Lesley Stahl being the one who conducted the interview, which puts the show on CBS. Now to be perfectly honest I dont remember if this was a new episode or one of those repeats that seem to be in constant cycle across a myriad of cable channels. In any case, I cannot quote the source. You can choose to dismiss what I have to say next on that point alone, frankly I couldnt care less. The gist of the matter is this: The interview was with a doctor from the University of Edinburgh who had conducted tests on mice to study the very longevity/rejuvenation effect you have been speaking of and he found that the results in mice were remarkable. However, when the same tests were conducted on Rhesus monkeys (a much closer genetic match to humans than mice) he found no similar rejuvenation effect.
Well, I am not going to dismiss it, but I haven't seen it, so I cannot comment accurately, however, telomerase doesn't just function with the genome, it works on the outside of the genetic structure (the double helix of ACTG) so he would have seen effects akin to the mice initially, but due to the telomeres in the genome, it may have not been enough, or too much, which will cause cancer, and that is why human trials for the tissue regeneration effect are so far off. At the very least it could be about a decade. If you ever find the episode I would quite like to see it.
Are you seriously trying to equate the believability of someone being able to put a bomb on a boat to a dead man being brought back to life? Really... really? Look, bomb on a boat, tumbler on a roof, yada, yada, yada are interchangeable for all intents and purposes so lets pick one, since only one is necessary to debunk the foundation of your entire premise.
Why, but it is not, I was asking for all those things because by the time they would have actual answers that make sense, the clinical trial for cancer will be finished, and I will have a successful human application.
How did Joker get the bombs on the boats?
Answer: He was a sneaky bastard.
Joker was such a sneaky bastard he single handedly moved hundreds of barrels of a flammable substance on to two boats, he couldn't have known would be used while in jail with Batman, and then escaping jail, so he could see Harvey, and then went to the Prewitt building to have Batman confront him?
Is he sneaky or is he The Flash?
Bollocks, that is just petty posturingif you could have answered the question then you would have done it.
I can't answer it. Yet.
Heres the rub as far as far as telomerase goes for the justification of a Lazarus Pit: While boosting telomerase levels in mice triggered a dramatic reversal in the signs of aging the treated mice did not live longer than normal mice. So while telomerase manipulation may have the potential to keep the signs of aging at bay for a longer period of time youre still going **** up when that time comes. But at least youll go out looking good, but out you go nonetheless.
Where did you get that? Everywhere I looked it never revealed what happened to them.
Now if youll excuse me I have more important matters to attend to... such as debating the relative merits of a gray fabric (NOT SPANDEX!) batsuit.
Of course, I'll get the ball rolling. The rubber armour costumes will stick because the audience will see it and think "that's armour. Unlike us nerds who might think "why doesn't he use *insert*?". It will stick around for the aesthetic value.
