/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8511649
>fuses Deuterium to qualify as a brown dwarf
Goddamn it, now we have to redefine shit again

Good morning or whatever. I, for lack of a better term, am a Darwinist. I'm not an "expert" on the subject, but it's something that I'm rather fascinated with, read a large amount of material about, and study individually during my spare time.
Anyway, recently I've stumbled across a couple issues and inconsistencies with the Theory of Natural Selection, that I hope y'all can help me sort out or find a solution to, that still keeps the Theory of Natural Selection intact (or perhaps even invalidates/alters the theory).
If the Theory of Darwinism holds true, then, technically speaking, our species should have excessively rare occurrences (if at all) in which a member of our species acquires some sort of genetic ailment with a 100% mortality rate (note: the ailment in question must be 100% fatal without modern treatment options, genetically acquired, and the onset of the ailment must come to fruition at a relatively young age (i.e. Before sexual maturity), in order for this to be a valid objection/logical gap to Darwinism; anything lower than a 100% mortality rate, or any genetic ailment that materializes itself, on average, significantly after the age of human sexual maturity, gives the sufferer of the given ailment a chance to reproduce, and thus, adequately explains why these ailments are still present).
However, as I'm sure many of us have noticed, there are still frequent occurrences of genetic diseases and ailments with early onset ages that, without modern treatment options, would be a death a sentence for whoever was unfortunate to receive them. An example of this would be Type I diabetes. It has a 100% fatality rate without the manual administration of insulin, and it's average age of manifestation is 14; an age that is typically too low to be associated with consistent reproduction in humans. There are other examples of this, but for the sake of brevity, I think I'll just leave it at that. What do you think /sci?

>>5149986
Nice wikipedia abstract. It's literally the first fucking line on the "chemical element" article.

Also, everyone who says diamond is an element is just playing with words. Show me the element "diamond" in the periodic table. If you point to carbon, then you're not pointing to diamond, because diamond cannot exist as a single atom, as there isn't diamond without at least enough carbons to form it.

tl;dr diamond isn't an element, it's an array of molecules made of carbon.

>>5150182
OP was just playing, that's obvious. But there's no doubt someone here thinks diamond IS an element.

Biomedical courses are just watered down versions of EE, ME, and ChemE classes. When you look for a job, you WILL be overlooked for a proven engineering discipline major.

quit now while you have the chance

So, /sci/, I'm planning on (hopefully) transferring from my current university to MIT as a Physics Major after my Sophomore year.
I'm in my Freshman right now.
So I was wondering if anyone has had experience with transferring to MIT, especially in their physics department, and what their experience was like. What they're looking for, whether there was testing and what not, stuff like that.

Thanks /sci/!

I'm a space alien. Think I'll go swing by Earth. Sure, I can view the Earth from far orbit just fine but nah, why not buzz through the atmosphere awhile. Maybe I'll land and mutilate some cows. Need more cow DNA or some shit.

Seriously?

>>4132742
...