/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12404509
Reminder

>>11930670
>chink authors
That's racist

>>11858163
>Naturalnews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ7jwevZbb4
She's right you know.

>>11635236
It only tells that you have apply ten times on average to be accepted once.
I heard that average number is 100 times (probably that's because you have to apply 10 times in every organization and only one out of 10 will accept your paper.
Which made me say fuck that shit, I'm not going that road paved with shit. I will do my science for myself and for whoevere is interested and I'm not going to depend on their gibs

>>11555555
Checked

>>11436617
Universities are long obsolete if you think of them as of places sharing some knowledge with you. But they're not, they teach you some skills. One of the most important of those skills is obedience.

>>11379754
>>11379665
Okay, the blog post starts being more and more inconsistent. The author basically explains more the construction of the human eye and about its advantages, but tells almost nothing about the cepalophod eye. This comparison isn't fair.
>The main constraint is that it is absolutely essential that the outer segments of the photoreceptors be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) in order for them to function and to reduce light scattering in the eye.
So he is talking here about the layer under the photoreceptors. How does it make the inverted design bad, how is it impossible for the inverted design?
>First of all the RPE is highly pigmented so that it absorbs light. This prevents any photons that don’t get absorbed in the outer segments from scattering and blurring the image.
Not an argument regarding inverted design, such a layer could exist in the cephalopod eye, it is not present, because it's not needed in water.
>Secondly, the outer disks wear out quite rapidly. They are formed near the middle of the photoreceptor and move up to the tip over 11 days, where they are pinched off and discarded. The RPE digests these worn out disks (phagocytosis) so that they don’t clog up the retina and prevent the photoreceptors from getting the nutrients it needs. When this process malfunctions, the retina degenerates.
Still not an argument regarding inverted desing. Not needed underwater.
>Thirdly, the RPE and the choroid layer behind it provide oxygen, nutrients and necessary chemicals for the photoreceptors to function.
Not an argument supporting the hypothesis inverted design is better. It just tells the layer UNDER the rods and cones feeds them. Nothing impossible with the cepalophod design.

The post is too long, I'm going to write more...

>>11365089
>Peer review is a fucking joke.
It is. For many causes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8D_-_4RWn8

>>11339538

>>11295132
Greetings from a neighbouring thread!

>>11297885
Not an argument

>>11290887
>Ever citing Unz
So?

>>11286677

>>10773611

>>10726402

>>10638207
So where are your peer-reviewed sources showing that fertility rates will remain low for the rest of eternity, and that the human brain is magically immune to evolution?

>>10444412

>>10142017