/sci/ - Science & Math

>climate change deniers think
slow down, you're giving them too much credit.

>>9219664
>allopatric speciation
>selective pressure
>individual selection
>population selection
>Factors into filling a niche
>>9217181

allopatric speciation is the divergence of subpopulations that have been separated by some barrier, to the point that they become incapable of interbreeding. this has nothing to do with niches; whether the subpopulations occupy similar or dissimilar niches, speciation occurs if migration rates are low enough for long enough.
selective pressure is a differential probability of survival (or expected number of progeny) based on variation in some character(s).
individual selection is when selective pressure changes an individual's probability of survival based on their character state.
population selection is the aggregate result of individual selection, in which character state frequencies are modulated by some selective pressure. now this DOES relate to niche filling, sort of, because it usually results in the population's fundamental niche staying in concordance with its environment.

talking about the niche of a single individual is futile, as there's not enough to generalize from. in ecology, we deal with population niches.
>b-b-but it's on Wikipedia so it must be true!
okay dude

honestly, all anyone really needs to know about your knowledge in the area is that you unironically believe that short-necked proto-giraffes didn't die off, they just evolved into something else. what do you think they evolved into, exactly?

>>8992629
I suspected you would post that stupid misinformed comic, and I was not wrong.

Antibiotic resistance does not arise through the LOSS of the antibiotic's target. Think about it for maybe five seconds; if the action of the antibiotic interfering with the enzyme is enough to kill the bacterium, how would losing the essential enzyme entirely allow the bacterium to survive?
When resistance arises, it's generally through one of two mechanisms: either the target is modified in such a way that it retains its function but no longer interacts with the drug, or a DIFFERENT enzyme is repurposed to break down the drug.
This is observed over and over and over again; you are fundamentally ignorant of how resistance works.

Like I said,
>Creationists never actually have an answer for this question. They either pretend it never happened, or claim that it's somehow a loss of information despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And you've done the former in the case of the Lenski experiment, and the latter in the case of resistance. Thanks for walking right into it.

>>8978524
>It has been found that given resources to struggling schools has almost no effect.
[citation needed]

>>8939401
>ha ha I can't refute his post so I'll just accuse him of having no gf
>I sure hope nobody notices

>>8774001
>before we let you practice medicine, we better make sure you're not a brainlet who doesn't understand biology and chemistry
>meaningless hoop

>>8745534
>still gets pooper peeved that he'd not getting the Capital Treatment
who's more rectum ravaged? the guy who doesn't put in the effort to properly capitalize his posts, or the guy throwing a fit about it in the comments?
I mean, hot damn. I've actually got the ass burgers, and this is way more autistic than I've ever contemplated.

>your next post will be "I was only pretending to care strongly about capitalization! I'm not upset!"

>>8659424
buttmad neet detected

>>8639109
>Your strawman greentext (government employees should conduct their work in bad faith) was, of course, not a consequence of the principle I stated (government employees should not act outside of their assigned role) at all.
you said that because scientists at government agencies speak with the authority of the government, they're not allowed to say or publish anything that goes against the policy line. stop trying to pretend you said something different, we can all scroll up and read it for ourselves.

>It's a job. You do the job. If the job requires you do things you don't think are right, you quit.
scientists' role is to conduct research. if the results of that research are politically inconvenient, too bad; fact is not determined by who's in charge. when political forces determine what theories are or aren't true, we call it Lysenkoism.

>"you better give the politically-correct results or you're out!" is not just the motto of Lysenkoism, but of global climate research as well
Yeah, that's why people like Roy Spencer were drummed out of academia and publicly funded science. Oh wait, they weren't.
You deniers are so desperate to make yourselves out to be the victims that you're conjure out of whole cloth stories of the brave noble climate skeptic horribly oppressed by the climate illuminati...despite the fact that it just doesn't happen.

>pic related
>I don't need to provide evidence for anything I say because this is /sci/ goddammit!
did you mean to click on >>>/x/ perchance? I'm sorry, on this board we require evidence to support our claims.

>>8639148
>The president doesn't control NASA's budget.
>blames president for a launch vehicle not being completed during his term
yeah, because he's personally down there in the R&D lab designing it himself, right?

>>8532730
>Except the head of NASA GISS does not agree.
what the IOP said:
>the troposphere is probably warming, we're just having trouble measuring it accurately
what Schmidt said:
>according to theory, the troposphere should be warming
TOTAL DISAGREEMENT, RIGHT?
even for a denier this is a new low. you literally just referenced a guy who AGREED with the poster you're arguing against...and claimed that he DISAGREED. do you think these things through at all before you post them?

>>8515714
to recap:
me: please provide sources for your claims
you: here are some sources
me: these sources don't support your claims
you: ARGLE BARGLE FAKE CONSENSUS
nice diversion

but, in fact, Cook et al. 2013 did NOT do what you're accusing them of doing. the 97% figure is of papers that took a position on the issue, not including the studies that didn't take a position one way or the other.
it's literally RIGHT THERE IN THE ABSTRACT, you actual retard.
>We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

>>8477737
>implying there exists a "Crime Statistics Bureau"
>implying a pissy rant justifies a serious response

>>8464708
>I forgot to mention, I take anime pretty seriously sad to say

>taking notes
what's it like to be a brainlet who can't remember the things he hears or reads?

>>8389918
>tfw I was there when this was posted

>>8379998
I don't add a constant to my indefinite integrals