Well the body doesn’t kill itself, it’s just that eventually it doesn’t have any way to generate more heat and your insides where your organs are gets so cold that they can’t function anymore. Before that it will sacrifice your extremities and let your outer skin and stuff die to keep as much as heat as possible deep inside, since you can still survive if some extremities or patches of skin die but not if your heart stops beating.

The stages of hypothermia are defined by your body temperature. Stage 1 is around 90-95 F, you’ll shiver a lot and feel freezing but otherwise mostly normal. Stage 2 is around 82-90 F and you’ll stop shivering and start to become delirious or lose consciousness. Stage 3 is around 75-82 and you’ll be unconscious with weak vital signs (your heart is barely able to beat anymore). Stage 4 is 59-75 F, you’ll appear dead but it’s possible that you might be revived. Below 59 F and you’ve definitely frozen death. How long it takes depends on a lot of things, like the temperature outside and what you’re wearing. That’s why you might see warnings about hypothermia and dressing appropriately when it’s really, really cold - like if its -50 F, your body temperature can drop into stage 1 hypothermia in less than 5 minutes if you aren’t covering your head and hands and feet.

There’s no evidence that it does anything. David Sinclair is the the one that discovered that altering a protein class called sirtuins can limit aging in yeast. Resveratol works on those proteins. I don’t know of any negative effects to taking it (I don’t think there are but I don’t want to mislead) but there is literally no evidence after a ton of trials that it actually has any effect on anything in humans. The thing is that there are some scientists that are incredibly smart, even among other researchers, and incredibly gifted at designing creative experiments but then draw insane unsupported conclusions from the results.

So basically if you want to take it fine and personally I wouldn’t say I’m completely convinced it’s useless (though it sure looks like it is), but expect it to just do nothing and understand his claims are not backed by his own data.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking, it’s just terminology but they are all crimes. From Wikipedia, in Canada specifically homicide is defined as causing death to another person. The actual crime you are charged with would be called murder, infanticide, or manslaughter depending on what you did. I think most or all countries are the same, homicide means the act of killing someone else and the other three are the actual crime you’d be charged with.

Oh I think part of it is how you think of “dominant” and “recessive” alleles. I feel like I was taught that dominant alleles mask the recessive allele - so in other words as a random example that the allele for brown eyes is dominant and the allele for blue eyes is recessive, so if you have just one copy of the dominant allele it will hide the blue eyes trait. Often that’s not what happening - really the dominant allele makes a functioning protein while the recessive allele makes a protein that is “broken “ and doesn’t do anything. So the recessive phenotype is really the result of not having the functioning protein at all. Obviously there are tons of different scenarios, but a lot of genes do work this way.

I have no idea if there is really a gene for blue and brown eyes but using that as a hypothetical example: the dominant allele that gives you brown eyes would really be making a protein that does something with pigment that turns your eye color brown. Without that protein doing it’s job your eyes would just be blue. Having one copy of the allele that makes the functioning protein will make enough of it to turn your eyes brown, so it’s “dominant”.