/sci/ - Science & Math

General biology, yes.

If you're a drone, yes.

If you are a certain kind of person, no

http://raypeat.com/articles/
http://www.gilbertling.org/

it really all depends how good you are in a lab.
fuck the specific subjects.
go to STEM labs,all of them, see how much tools and equipment they have.
biologists pretty much collect the samples no one else wants to collect.
but pharmies, and other biotech eat that shit up.

I mean, it’s a lot of memorization, but setting up experiments isn’t. Biochem and microbio are pretty cool. It’s interesting regardless, so

>>10509769
I have 2 months left before finishing my B.S. in biology.

It's all memorization, frankly it's amazing that anyone does poorly in bio courses, and that's typically because they're focusing on more difficult courses like calc and orgo. I got the highest grade in the course in two of my biology classes because I made note cards and studied regularly instead of cramming. This meant a lot of time investment in shit that didn't matter and i no longer remember.
Now that my grades don't matter (already accepted a Ph. D in Biochem) I'm really disenchanted by the triviality of a lot of the material.
You'll often get tested on shit that you wouldn't remember even if you needed to know it, which you wont (e.g. the biotech class i took last quarter, I got a high B on the first exam and A on second, studying only one day for both, but regularly got Cs on lab quizes because they asked questions trivially specific to the experiment we performed, and i wasn't willing to invest time in trivia).
studying Bio will give you good grades but you'll waste time on bullshit. That being said, I don't regret studying biology because I get big boners learning about cell bio and biochem. I could have studied biochem, but at least at my uni "biochem" just means "chem and you take biochem", and I don't find the rest of chem very riveting.
Bio majors often have significantly better GPAs (3.97 here, prior to this quarter due to grad visits/ senioritis) than chem majors but at the same time a grad school you apply to is at least moderately likely to expect this pattern.

Sure, i think it's for brainlets. I chose bio sophomore year of highschool because it was the least challenging and most interesting science. It's also one of the less practical sciences, so i'm blessed to at least prefer the biochemistry side which is marginally more employable.

>>10509967
cont'd.

>>10509769
Why do you ask? Are you trying to figure out a major?

>>10509967
>(already accepted a Ph. D in Biochem)
Based. What are you hoping to study/research?

>>10509973
Just curious.

Sure you can just simply memorize anything. But you should also realize that organisms are nothing else than natural, super complex machines. We don't understand them yet enough, which I think is why it's important to memorize a lot of stuff, to be able to work in that field but if you dive in deep enough into the materia you notice patterns and rules on not only chemical and physic level but also on biological level. The moment you start to understand these and understand the boundaries you can actively manipulate nature, like e.g. in synthetic biology. I think this is, where it gets really interesting. Sure you have to learn a lot, but what really matters is the ability to translate what you learned, predict and explain yours or others results based on that and contribute to the worlds general understanding of nature and humans.

>>10509769
Biophysics is where it’s at if you want to do lots of math and coding.

>>10510221
What are some good materials to learn biology in this kind of holistic manner?

>>10510350
I'm from Germany and we don't have that lecture book culture like you in the US. Rather than buying a book I recommend you to participate in competitions like iGEM or do a project in a SynBio/Bioengineering Lab, so you can learn that type of thinking. There are a lot of opportunities in your country for that. Generally there are a lot of different approaches in Synbio, genetic circuits being maybe the one of the most interesting ones so far, since it tries to logical gate programm cells. You should at least know the basics about how a gene is build/ genetic expression is controlled, most important signalling pathways and so forth. If you want to design sth for therapeutic purposes you will need to have a good enough knowledge about immune system and therapy success discriminating factors as well....it's basically what you learn in your biochem/molbio studies, or any big biochem/molbio book but it is important to get practical experience to give it a purpose.

>>10509769
Harder than C"S"

MD PhD here, biology is for brainlets

>>10512641
>biology is for brainlets
Neurobiology major here:
so if I'm struggling, trying to understand the functions of proteins we don't currently understand in terms of mechanisms, should I just off myself?

>>10512669
No.

If you're actually doing research, it's difficult. But isn't proteins the easiest part of bio? I always though genomics was more difficult

>>10509769
>brainlets
Stop with your intellectual posturing, you pseud. Biology is a large field and covers many different phenomena related to living organisms. People pursue what they find interesting, are good at and find meaningful.

biology should make us question about the missing links in evolution. Does it sound far fetched when i say aliens genetically created us

>>10512686
>isn't proteins the easiest part of bio?
>I always though genomics was more difficult

Genomics doesn't exist without proteins mate, what do you think CRISPR is? If being able to understand the mechanisms by how machines like pic related work seems easy to you, then come and claim your ez noble prize

>>10509769
Biology is studying systems that took billions of years to develop. It's like physics taken to natures limit. Our models are basically today just looking at the surface of these systems, it will be a long time until we reverse engineer the human body in every aspect.

>>10512816
It's possible but until we can prove the Earth couldn't have developed all the life here, we have no real reason to look into those factors.

>>10512686
In my opinion the reverse is true. We understand genomics fairly well actually. We can sequence entire genomes, and it is becoming easier and easier to discover what a gene codes for.

In contrast, we know virtually nothing about how protein folding actually works, and the function of a lot proteins is not clear. Also the interactions of proteins is incredibly complex.

>>10512960
we were made to ignore that factor.

>>10512999
What do you mean? Even intelligent life on Earth didn't start here, it started somewhere using the same of similar processes as it would have on Earth. How and why would we ignore it? We haven't got to the point where we can say yes, life didn't start here because we lacked this X factor, unil then we have no reason to think life started somewhere else.

>>10513012
Missed an if after first Even

>>10513012
Please watch this 2 hour video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcsqEK53ZFU

I hope you are openminded enough to watch this, if not, thats also okay.

>>10513028
Idk 2 hours is a long time can I get a tldw in case I decide not to watch it all?

>>10513032
sure anon.
i'll give you a greentext tldr

>interview between alien on planet earth and some guy in sweden
>the alien lady says she was the first species on earth and other alien species genetically created us for their benefit
>people that genetically created us left earth
>rest is history
>aliens can read our minds and change your perception of reality through telekenisis
>she talks about the dinosaurs, ufos, modern technology, evolution, god, humanity, area 51, roswell ufo crash etc

its interesting but if you are busy with reality( uni, studying etc etc) i suggest you dont bother with this video at all.

>>10509769

There are many unsolved mysteries in biology like in many other fields.
I mean we still don't even fully understand the way our own bodies work just think about that
If it really was for brainlets you'd think we would have it all figured out

>>10509797
Underrated post, learning about the AI hypothesis was absolutely mindblowing.

I do deep learning in the bioinformatics space. Shit's pretty cash.

>>10509769
Certain fields in ecology and phylogenetics, biophysics, quantitative genetics and molecular biology are inaccessible to brainlets; gen bio, organismal, “evolutionary bio”, behavioral bio, biochem are for fucking retards and unless you are doing cutting edge work in cell bio you are most likely never going to think for longer than a few minutes about a problem.
>>10509967
>he did cell bio and biochem avoiding all math or need for mechanical intuition and thinks he’s qualified to talk about rigor

>>10509769
You can coast far on memorization well through your undergrad degree. It's just the nature of how it's taught, and GPA inflation is pretty rampant in biology B.S. programs.

The discipline itself is, for me, the most fascinating part of nature. Bio has just as much problem solving as other sciences if you're working as a researcher (albeit less math, unless you're a bioinformatician or really into systems bio). Basic biology is the source of pretty much every major medical advancement that later ends up being refined in medical research labs.

>>10513502
>he did cell bio and biochem avoiding all math or need for mechanical intuition and thinks he’s qualified to talk about rigor

Nobody learns proof-writing or real analysis or QM as a biology undergrad because it's not applicable to the vast majority of problems you'll work on. Most folks who do biology do not 'avoid math', they just don't take classes that won't count for credit because they live in a real world where things cost money and time is finite.

>>10512985
>>10512930
True wasn't thinking that broadly, I guess you're right.

>>10512950
Lies. Without as it happened Evidence You hiding behind Billions of years does in no way legitimize your fantasy. Let's simplify: You and everyone else in this thread needed years of school to even understand what's going on and yet you believe that nothing for No reason using Brownian motion managed to surpass what our best technomages as of yet remain incapable of doing.

Let's slow it down because you're all a bunch of brainlets for not having seen this sooner.

You had to use your mind and will and determination and grandiose levels of effort to even approach the study of biological systems, to say nothing of understanding it because that would have come much later.

But random bumping; Brownian Motion which without a mind, network of correlated facts, interest or even aligned schools managed to surpass you and everyone else? Madness! Even funnier, you and your Ministers would have us believe all this without as it happened Evidence. And the only validation you have is, "it happened over billions of years." You're even funnier than when Doctor Evil closed his view of the laser sharks attacking Austin Powers and legitimized that bit of insanity with,"What? I'LL JUST ASSUME IT ALL WENT AS PLANNED." And that's what you're doing. Hey, how's about you leave a few Legos lying in a sealed chest under the earth. Surely the Nothingness you serve can build a simple structure out of a handful of Legos. Here it is you're claiming it made trillions of complex purposeful systems. So what's a few blocks?

>>10513058
molecular biology pHD here now with advances in sequencing and CRISPR a lot of questions have been now approachable with out increased time or money

>>10509769
/sci/ hates biology because its the only field that produces real answers and real results.

I love biology

>>10513971
You type like a 60 year old baby boomer church mom. Brownian motion has essentially nothing to do with how most biological machines work - the biggest contributors to protein kinetics are electrostatic interactions. The theory of self-assembling systems improving themselves over billions of years aligns perfectly with theory and observation - it only seems implausible to you because you've probably never studied it in any depth whatsoever. Hence the fixation on Brownian motion and the GED-recipient-tier English skills.

>>10509797
Seems like this guy is claiming that everything we think we know about cell physiology is total bullshit.

The question I have is:

Who or what is suppressing this information, and what do they have to gain from doing this?

>>10509769
Biology is based

>>10511072
>US
>Book culture
Kek, that's a laugh for the rest of the week.

>>10514946
Admitting that they were wrong would be absolutely terrible for the pharmaceutical/medical equipments industry, the agricultural industry, public health officials as well as the institutions and professionals in medicine and biology, it would force them to admit that the majority of what they've been doing for the last century or so is at best useless.

>>10515119
didn't we fucking know that since the 20th and even 19th century? They can't even cure the common cold, of course they're mentally retarded incompetent morons. As clear as day, as clear as knowing that politicians are incapable of using a sound vocabulary and language in a non retarded way.

>>10515209
No, quite a lot of people have blind faith in their doctors and other so-called experts, as well as accept pseudo-scientific dogma such as a genetic model of degenerative diseases (including cancer), hyperglycemia causing diabetes etc.

>>10514882
Here's the moron! Hey liar, Have You as It Happened Evidence of systems improving themselves? Of course you don't, you despicable liar!

HERETOFORE, You Incredulous incorrigible Fabulists, Show us scientific evidence and that's observable, (OBSERVATION: to see and register cognitively an event and be able to retain and commend thereafter perfectly and honestly of what was observed ) and TESTABLE evidence of biological systems perfecting themselves a Purported 1 Billion years ago? And that's Scientific Evidence with As It Happened Evidence of your Purported self perfecting system.

>>10515398
>Hey liar, Have You as It Happened Evidence of systems improving themselves?

Yes. Antibiotic resistant bacteria - species carrying retroviral DNA that links them as relatives of a common ancestor - the human immune system that generates completely novel antibodies for antigens it has never seen before. The idea of biology autonomously improving itself through selection of beneficial random variants is extremely well-substantiated.

In your spaghetti-pile of nonsensical bullshit, there is a meaningful point though. The origins of life prior to single-celled organisms are not entirely understood. RNA world hypothesis posits that RNA comprised the first self-propagating life, and it's backed up by a lot of the research into ribosomal structure. It's still not definitively known, but you won't find any biologists claiming they're absolutely certain about how life arose from primordial soup.

>>10515119
The biggest problem with these medical conspiracy theories (despite the fact that Bezos is bald and that you need to believe in the illuminati for any of them to stand up to extreme scrutiny), is that any professional working in an industry who discovered that there's a massive market inefficiency, protected by completely un-patented trade secrets, capable of providing a service that the entire developed world would want, would immediately just commit corporate espionage and sell it to a foreign power that would proceed to produce said McGuffin (cancer cure, AIDS cure, whatever) and make trillions of dollars.

The issue that conspiracy theorist retards don't address in their line of thinking is that while a cheap cure for cancer is bad for the /market cap/ of the pharmaceutical industry, whichever firm patented such a thing would immediately be the most profitable business in the world. Thus there's an absolutely massive market incentive for any individual to 'cheat' and release such a thing to the public, which hitherto has never happened.

>>10515404
For any of that garbage to be evidence of Evolution you'd have to compare that garbage that you're claiming is evolution with As It Happened Scientific Evidence of the Purported First Instantiation of Evolution. Therefore, you sad little man, you'd have to search for that garbage there in the Purported first instantiation of evolution a billion years ago. Otherwise youre a Believer who believes that garbage of yours is evolution but only believe since you'll never prove otherwise.
And that's the point, you liar liar pants on fire, the only way to validate any of that is to compare what you believe evolution to be in the Purported events that began a Purported Billion years ago, otherwise it's forever fantasy which makes you lot a bunch of believers Like theist are. At least theist are more believable since only purposeful people can ever achieve the purposefully complex. You morons believes nothing for no reason made life perfectly.

>>10515586
>t. seething christard

The amount of cope and emotion in your posts is overspilling, just relax for a moment please. No one is saying they have all the steps figured out, for how and when life started but we have evidence of emergent complexity. We don't start with the assumption that Nature is complete chaos without a creator. It is possible that life started on Earth incidentally not transcentally, and that, is worth exploring. In the end, this effort may not harm your beliefs, it may even reinforce your creationist theory (which no one knows how to prove otherwise).

>>10515621
There's no cope with me but there's Everest levels of cope with you. You see, your kind disgust me and the sad truth is people allow you liars a say which is terribly sad. You've never proven anything you believe nor can you. All that garbage in your post amounts to, we made it up. So say it with me, you lying scum, say "I believe like theist do, and even though theist at least believes a person made all this, we believe nothing for no reason brought all this into being. So maybe we made it up, but id like to think thats how it actually happened. Which also kinda makes me faithful seeing as how I have no Scientific Evidence of 'as it happened Data'."

>>10515586
I don't entirely understand what you're saying, but I think what you're arguing is that evolution can't happen because "what would start off the process"?

That's the whole idea behind the RNA world hypothesis - we've demonstrated that early-Earth conditions were favorable to the formation of nucleotides and the spontaneous generation of short RNA sequences. All it takes is dumb luck to make one that replicates itself with the capacity for error - after which you're doing evolution.

Is that how it actually went down 4 billion years ago? Not necessarily, but it's not like the idea of self-replicating life arising from not-self-replicating matter poses some insurmountable challenge to biology.

Biology is ahead of psychology but behind chemistry on the "Fag's relative barrier of entry scale". Where psychology, sociology, or any other useless field of study would rank at a 1 or 2, biology ranks at a solid 4 for all the crap they have to remember.

Then you have the big boys: engineering, chemistry, and physics, ie, the real sciences. Although, chemistry is more like biology in crap you have to remember, there's way more of it and they require you to know physics for some courses.

Engineering requires more than a base level physics understanding, so already much harder than chemistry, and waaaaay harder than biology.

And the father of all sciences, the true king of the jungle, is physics. Which undoubtedly gets a 10 on the Fag's scale. It requires expertise in math, physics knowledge, programming, critical thinking, and memorizing.

So yeah, TL;DR: Sociology and psychology are pseudosciences if we're being honest, biology is a few steps above that, then there are the real sciences. Hope that helps

>>10515119
Why do pharmaceuticals based on the cell pump model treat diseases? Or do they not treat anything?

>>10515867
>pic related: you

>>10515882
based

>>10515881
im pursuing an advanced degree in bio-related field and I have no clue what the hell you mean by 'cell pump model' - do you mean like, ion channels?

>>10515888
Yes. If ion channels are bogus, we should expect medication that targets ion channels to have zero effect.

>>10515867
>engineering is science
lmfao, nice bait

>>10515895
Who's saying ion channels are bogus?

>>10515922
http://www.gilbertling.org/pdf/The-Association-Induction-Hypothesis-42-page-summary.pdf

>>10515881
At best they do nothing, at worst they are cytotoxic.

>>10516061
>http://www.gilbertling.org/pdf/The-Association-Induction-Hypothesis-42-page-summary.pdf

Apparently he came up with this in 1962, so if it still isn't substantiated by modern molecular biology techniques, it probably isn't true. Interesting read though - can't tell whether the author is nuts or just a guy with bold ideas back before lab biology got a lot better.

>>10509769
I love /sci/, as soon as you ask a question like this you get a bunch of fucking brainlets saying "hurr durr yeah I am doing biochem/physics/engineering".

What they don't realise is that when you are doing a degree, you are barely scratching the surface of your field. You are a totaly brainlet at that point and know little about loads of stuff and fuck all about anything in particular, and therefore have no basis on which to call anyone a brainlet.

So yes, Biology degrees are for brainlets, just like any other degree.

>>10512930
>Genomics doesn't exist without proteins mate, what do you think CRISPR is?

What do you think CRISPR is?
wtf does "genomics doesn't exist without proteins" even mean?
This literally makes no sense, Genomics predated the discovery of CRISPR. Furthermore, Genomics is a field and CRISPR is is a family of sequences. If you mean the CRISPR-Cas9 system, then the only relationship that has to do with genomics is genome editing, which is a tiny field of something which is more a branch of molecular biology/genetics than genomics.

>>10515843
You've demonstrated nothing. To prove your early earth theory you'd had to have been there and observed it as it happened. Miller was a chef who meticulously over several months cooked a dish. And yet that was a few molecules that ceased to be the moment the conditionals he achieved was disturbed. That doesn't show the mechanism as to how and why nothing for no reason chose consecutively left handed molecules. And that's in a world of left and right molecules. So, for your fantasy to be real, you'd have to show us nothingness choose consecutively left handed amino acid molecules trillions of times and create complex purposeful chemical directives with these systems. And that's why you're all a bunch of failures; you can't and you never will.

>>10515843
And that's why Nasa spent billions checking ice rocks in space. They hoped to find the smoking gun that would serve to validate your magical early earth nonsense.

>>10515882
So what's going in with chem on this comic?

>>10509977
protein engineering hopefully. I'm not very interested in medicine although the school im joining is heavily focused in medicine. One of the labs i plan to rotate in/have been communicating with is an energy proteng lab.

>>10513502
I'm not sure why you're so worked up by a discussion about biology. The guy asked about biology, I studied biology, that makes me qualified to talk about biology. I even said that the field isn't rigorous:
>Sure, i think it's for brainlets.
so it seems like you got real shook without even reading the post :^)
>complains about someone on the internet not being qualified to talk about the rigor of an academic subject
>can't read a whole paragraph

>>10516641
The Miller Urey experiment produced amino acids and micro compounds which are the key to life in an artificial setting,lasting much smaller than the fireball phase of earth. There's definitely a good backing to the "early earth nonsense". What alternate theory do you have which has any evidence backing it?

>>10515815
I'm saying we figured out part of the story that brought us from the origin of life to now (ie evolutionary processes). We extrapolated the process back in time, we just need to figure out what started it in the first place. It's not a made up theory to disprove your religious beliefs, it's based on what we see in the nature world. I'm not sure what the purpose is of making up it up in the first place would be, you can still have your religion and believe in evolution, look at the Catholic church. It's not exclusive and the belief in science is the process of proving or disproving something, not the theories themselves.

>>10516810
There isn't any evidence to validate your fantasy. Who is represented by Miller's meddling?


>>10517403
Fantasy isn't reality. Scientific Evidence is the only way to validate your story. Otherwise it's as fantastical as maRey Sue, and equally as incredulous.

>>10509967
>2 months left before finishing my B.S.
>already accepted a Ph. D
You're just straight-up not doing a Master's? You think you can do a PhD with that undergraduate mindset?

>>10512641
if true you spent about 12 years after high school continuing to study more and more difficult things and now you spend time shitposting on a Peruvian needlepoint forum?

>>10516725
Worked with bio to slay one of the Four Horseman while also working with physics to build another.

>>10510350
Honestly? Field work. It doesn't click until you spend time working in nature in depth with a species and then one day you just kinda go "Ohhhhhhh." A lot of natural resource agencies, regardless of country, like having volunteers. Look up "bio blitzes" and join one. Also read "A Sand County Almanac."

>>10510350
If you can get a good professor, a course in behaviorism/ethology is a good starting point since if provides an absolute functional context.

>>10518428
Oh, and one point of advice on finding a good course: Ask the professor how much they focus on game theory. Game theory is the conceptual foundation of all ethological models, so his response will reveal to what degree the class focuses on a thorough understanding of how behavior works, as opposed to rote or mechanical specifics.

Also, once you understand behavior, you have a cause-based understanding. It's the most basic thing for a true biological understanding, but the next thing you need is physiology. Both plant and animal. This is one where taking a holistic approach is least meaningful, but make sure to have a solid understanding of what bet molecular inputs and outputs the main systems have. That reveals the need and drives of the biological world on a level which is internal to the organism, and which also applies to food choice and soil needs and other ecological circumstance.

Because the third aspect of biology that you need is ecology. That reveals to you the interactions of the organisms within a broader context. Honestly ecology courses are hard to rate because it's such a fucking huge topic with many different aspects, and tends to be more applied. But if you've got the other two, it becomes the jumping off point to gain an intuitive and predictive comprehension of biology.

>>10518489
With these three classes you have the foundation to do anything and to have an interdisciplinary conversation with any biologist, but to build on the foundation, the next step is fieldwork. Also, physiology is a huge rabbit hole that leads also to biochem, medicine, chemistry, and indirectly physics, while ecology is a rabbit hole that can lead to statistics, public policy, or agriculture. Ethology is perhaps the most dangerous of the three though, because the implications of applying it to humans can lead to political theory and philosophy. Regardless of which path you peer down, these are tangents to biological comprehension. You may find your interests truly lie in one of these areas, but they are merely supplemental if you want a thorough understanding of life, which is the heart of biology.

Anyway, once you've got that stuff taken care of field work and research is the most important thing for the purpose of strengthening your understanding, but don't forget to revisit those core areas of biology with respect to new taxa. Do some organismal and phylogenetic work while you're at it, and make sure there's no big holes in which systems you're familiar with. And by the time you've done all that, you will have mastered biology, and if you've done it in an academic setting will have a paper saying as much.

idk but I do biotechnology and it's pretty hard
btw I was in a eng chem degree and it was way easier

>>10509769
Really depends on the field. Qualitative work is obviously total garbage and most pure experimental work is relatively easy to understand. When you get into quantitative biology with heavily mathematical and/or computational work or research involving sophisticated statistical methods (and I don't mean fucking t-tests/anovas) then you'll need to think long and hard about the problems you're facing. You'll also need far more advanced maths and programming skills etc.

>>10513489
>>10513507
>>10519506
redpill me on bioinformatics

>>10509769
>>10509792

>>10519974
If you like a lot of math and programming and don't like laboratory science but still want to work on biological problems, then bioinformatics is for you

>>10518337
I do this for entertainment. And yes I've studied for most of my life but I'd rather do that than work

>>10520329
>I'd rather do something which only fulfills my own curiosity than do something which is of material value to anyone else, even in return for appropriate financial compensation
Really makes you think.

>>10510350
>>10511072
This. If you want to learn biology and how to manipulate it, participate in iGEM or a synth bio lab.

BTW, what igem Team are you from, if you don't mind me asking, anon?

>>10509769
It's both for brainlets and for geniuses. Much like Computer engineering.

Is the guide to biology in the /sci/ sticky good?

>>10515882
cool pic

>>10519974
A field borne out of the need for more sophisticated, efficient ways for dealing with and analysing the massive volumes of biological data that are now being generated.

>>10521041
On first glance no.

>>10522060
>On first glance no.
Any alternative you'd recommend?

>>10522410
Go for something more fundamental than what they have on there. They seem to have a load of niche stuff on the sticky. The quantitative biology section of arxiv subsections is actually a pretty all-encompassing list of areas you'll want to cover. Obviously don't do this through the pre-prints on the arxiv, but look for introductory text or online resources on these areas.

>>10522410
>>10522523
you can find what im talking about here by the way
https://arxiv.org/new/q-bio

Another thing to remember is that you should be covering maths up to a decent level alongside biology if you want to engage with the genuinely interesting, advanced material.

>>10509769
It's what I've made a career of, so I guess there is that...

>>10512985
Viewing everything from a computer engineer standpoint: I feel like genomics has taken the top-down 'box the architecture up' and 'then try to identify IO' approach. That way one can identify what's responsible for the analogous equivalent of fetching, decoding, issuing, reading, executing, and writing without needing to understand what's happening inside the boxes.
But it doesn't give you much in the way of understand that lets you create. Like opening a modern desktop game in a disassembler without knowing what most of the assembly instructions do, or even not knowing what assembly instructions some of the bytecodes might represent.

I think we need to spend more effort on a couple of the abstraction layers closer to the opposite end, in a bottom up manner. Map a couple dozen/whatever super super simple organisms, compare and contrast, make alterations and observe results, repeat to observe consistency or deterministic-ness, attempt to recreation alterations+results on similar and contrasting super simple organisms. etc.

It's not like our systems are using different languages. Well, actually it would be interesting to find out if the complex organisms all use the same (analogous equivalent of) syntax rules, grammar rules, interpreter/compiler; or if they've created different interpreters that do different things for the same input.

>>10522965
Ex-biofag here, you're basically describing synthetic biology. The problem with all that is that it takes way too long to draw any kind of useful conclusion. And the problem with that problem is that a lot of bio research is disease-oriented, meaning it needs to produce results that contribute to cures/treatments. The top-down method is much more effective in identifying many (but not all) disease-causing genes and targeting them for research. You simply don't have the time or resources to build and test every gene system and validate if it works in principle. You go with the most likely guess and hope it works.

So while the engineering approach is the theoretically best way and is being pursued more and more over time, it makes sense that it hasn't been that prevalent, researchers know about it, they just have to allocate priorities elsewhere. Creating was and will continue to be an objective secondary to disease research in the field of biology.

>>10523071
Their prospective life saving priorities are stupid. Give us the biological hardware and interfaces to make full dive virtual reality possible, damn it.

Thought I’d ask here instead of making a new thread:
How should I choose whether to major in bio or in chem? What are the respective professional outlooks and industries like for those fields?
What interests me more in chem is synthesis and lab work, not sure about my favorite aspects of bio yet.

>>10523758
chem is physics lite

>>10524333
That sounds like bullshit.

>>10523758
Biochemistry

>>10519974
We're entering big dick levels of biological data. Particularly sequencing data. If you have an operation doing whole genome sequencing on the reg it's easy to get petabytes of sequencing data.

So how do you deal with all of that? Bioinformatics and comp bio. The two fields are basically on a spectrum. Pure bioinformatics deals with algorithms and data structures for dealing with biological data. Pure comp bio deals with understanding biology through algorithmic and statistical approaches. Most real work deals with a mixture of both.