/sci/ - Science & Math

good good OP make fun threads evade them

>>12087487
Just wait until disinformation starts, let's see them dance around the horse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Morton%27s_mare

Bump

we need to infiltrate our agent into janny program
[math]\mathrm{apply~if~you~are~a~\color{#FF9040}{fun}~person}[/math]

>>12087483
basically yeah

there are literally dozens of research projects and credited science out there that proves it time and time again across the globe.

Seems to be obfuscated and minimized in greater academia and culture.

Then there's the whole racial differences things... WHEW

>>12087613
>>12087613
Well Heil Hitler I guess....

What kind of messed up 1984 world are we living. I am dating a girl who has slept with a few guys before me one of them black.

If we had both known about this in school instead of being taught mendelian plant genetics perhaps we would not have viewed sex as something shallow just for fun.

I almost hate myself for thinking the only people I can trust are fucking Nazis but it seems to be true at least when it comes to science.

T. Formally moderate millennial.

Bump

>>12087483
Do you know what a microchimerism is?

>>12087640
history is wild man.
Sadly there are tons of weird ass truths about the Nazi's you prob don't wanna go down that rabbit hole cause it'll destroy you.
History is written by the victors...

>>12087483
i forgot about this. Another reason I have to justify my intuitive desire to marry a virgin

>>12087483
Tl;dr?

>>12087896
/pol/ is retarded and thinks that microscopic pieces of flesh being absorbed by the body mean that you must marry a virgin or your child will be someone else's.

>>12087483
Yeah it's real she didn't cheat him, it's actually the genes of the black guy she dated many many many years ago that made the child black, she never cheated the white guy since they got together.

>>12087909
incorrect.

It's been proven time and time again duder. Provide some receipts to debunk it.

>>12087640
Jesus christ. No dude. That's not how it works. You can get your genome tested and you won't come out as being related to your mom's first hook up.
>>12087928
All your sources say literally nothing about children. It's all on microchimerism of the mom in n=30 where 10% have some present. The groups that have a higher percentage were due to the fact they had gotten pregnant at some point and the body primes itself not to kill the baby.

Women aren't angler fish even if you are a shrivled up simp

>>12087951
Still not providing sources for your claims, while claiming I had sources. I didn't even post anything idiot.

Nice try though.

IS THIS REAL? SOMEONE BETTER START TALKING FAST

>>12088007
The OP posted this shit. And what do you want from me? A source analyzing the non-existing relation between a woman's first hook up and the genetic makeup of her kids?

I can't prove a negative dude. If "it's been proven time and time again" then it should be easy to find a legitimate scientific source supporting the idea that genetic information from past hook ups is in future children. The assays to detect that would be simple sequencing.

>>12087483
This is bunk for inherited traits.
Yes, mothers absorb genetic material from people with whom they've conceived. These traces can linger for decades. Some can make it into a fetus. But it's strictly an auto-immune issue and has not been proven to transfer any genetic traits. It does however lead to breast cancer.
Everyone will talk about the fruit fly experiment. But it's important to remember that the fruit flies have such a short lifespan that sperm cells were still physically living when they next bred.
Crean, Angela J.; Kopps, Anna M.; Bonduriansky, Russell (2014). "Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother's previous mate". Ecology Letters. 17 (12): 1545–1552.
Conclusion: If your baby is black, she cheated.

>>12087613
its also noteworthy that telegony is just common knowledge with cattle farmers. a cow breed by a b-tier bull is never going to produce as good a calf with an a-tier bull than one you never had a b-tier bulls calf

>>12087640
>>12087613
>believing what some rando tells you on a tibetan coffee bean counting forum about genetics
jesus why is everyone on here a retard
It's so falsifiable its not even funny
we do genetic mouse breeding where we constantly setup mate pairing of different genotypes (WT with a knockout) over and over and over again, and then switch to WT + WT, or something else, and guess what dingus? Immaculate conception of rando genetics of a different mouse never pops up, ever
Genetics are always 100% what we set up to mate, regardless of how many mice the mom has banged or how many litters she's had before
Jesus christ you people are idiots

>>12088135
>its also noteworthy that telegony is just common knowledge with cattle farmers.
Cattle farmers are all hicks who believe in Q-anon, I don't trust them with "basic knowledge" of anything related to science

>>12088165
but im european desu. farmers around me barely know what internet even is

>>12088256
which makes it doubly worse, since its obvious its all olds-wives tales that don't hold up to scrutiny

>>12087483
There seems to some sort of bias towards pol in /sci/ but they’re pretty much always right no matter what the gook pencil neck filth on here tells you

>>12088285
Then go back to /pol/ where all the "right-think" is done and leave us in our filthy "wrong-think" in peace.

>>12088300
Why?

>>12088285
>but they’re pretty much always right
Jesus christ how can one be so delusional in the face of overwhelming science

>>12088307
Name some things they’ve gotten wrong in the realm of science

>>12088319
That's such a broad topic that I could say "X said this and Y is actually this" and you would say "pol never said X, that's a strawman "(I've encountered this before), so you're going to have to name something they are "always right about" before I even pretend like we're going to have an honest argument

>>12088319
they don't accept evolution

>>12088330
>so you're going to have to name something they are "always right about"
I can say the same thing you just did.
I asked you first because because you said>>12088307
And claimed they go against overwhelming science, which i dont agree with.
And dont forget i said ”pretty much”

>>12088361
[Insert group] are pretty much always right despite what [insert slur] tells you.

You do get why the way you are arguing relies on weasel words and are literally unassailable as you can always just twist what anyone else brings up as "no true scotsman" by calling it a straw man or "an exception that proves the rule".

>>12088304
So that we can read threads about people wanting to stick their dicks in the lhc without someone bringing up how only blacks would be dumb enough and have big enough dicks to reach or some stupid shit.

>>12088332
If there are people against it i doubt they claim what the ”evidence” shows is proof of evolution, they just dont like blindly believing stuff that they havent seen for themselves. Thats been my experience of /pol/. There are never threads refuting whats said in studies further than: ”i dont believe those results are not biased and and dont carry an agenda”

>>12088361
I need a claim to refute, anon
If you know a /pol/ claim you think they are right about, you can tell me here
If you don't know a /pol/ claim you think they are right about, it kinda defeats your original vague assertion that they are "pretty much" always right.
And now that you've thrown in
>And don't forget i said "pretty much"
there's no longer a winnable argument here.
If you assert something and I prove it wrong, you can fall back on "oh I didn't say always", so this conversation is now moot

>>12088379
they don't believe it cause it's not in the bible

>>12088378
Do it>>12088319

>>12088386
/pol/ is not even 50% christian. And not believing something because its not in the bible is not a /pol/ thing

>>12088382
>there's no longer a winnable argument here. If you assert something and I prove it wrong, you can fall back on "oh I didn't say always", so this conversation is now moot
Why does it all have to be a winnable argument? Im not trying to box you in. Im not trying to ”win” or ”loose”. Its a discussion in my eyes.

>>12088379
>There are never threads refuting whats said in studies further than: ”i dont believe those results are not biased and and dont carry an agenda”
This has 100% been my experience on /pol/. They are very anti-science, because by nature of their beliefs, anything that doesn't align with their beliefs is "agenda-driven by the jews", so they don't have to keep a consistent logical framework of how to view the world. They cherry-pick science when it "supports" their viewpoints, and claim it as irrefutable evidence, but any evidence in the exact same vein that doesn't support their viewpoints is immediately dismissed as "not real", with the only logical qualifier of dismissal being "does it support what I already believe?"
Point this out, they go bombastic with "ITS THE JEWS" and more or less declare they weren't being serious- a disingenuous tactic so they never have to admit that evidence contradicts their actual viewpoints.
It's an extremely common tactic; by allowing themselves to assert that its "just pretend" when they want, but a "serious topic discussion" when they don't, its gives them the flexibility to believe in a consistent narrative that is not held up by facts whatsoever.

>>12088406
>Why does it all have to be a winnable argument?
I dislike flowy discussions where everyone subtley moves their goalposts and subtely moves the topic to something else. Its much more fun (and productive) to pin down something concrete in conversation which the discussion revolves around.
But I often find /pol/ just immediately shouts "FUCK JEWS FUCK NIGGERS" when you try to have any concrete conversation whatsoever, so I just ignore them for the most part

>>12088407
>They cherry-pick science when it "supports" their viewpoints, and claim it as irrefutable evidence, but any evidence in the exact same vein that doesn't support their viewpoints is immediately dismissed as "not real", with the only logical qualifier of dismissal being "does it support what I already believe?"
Where are these threads? There are threads on politics done like this bug not in science. Maybe IQ threads but those are proven scientifically to be correct, thats why they are posted.
>Point this out, they go bombastic with "ITS THE JEWS" and more or less declare they weren't being serious- a disingenuous tactic so they never have to admit that evidence contradicts their actual viewpoints.
everytime they say ”its da jewss”
check if its done by jews because mosy of it is. If its not done by jews, its a joke. Thats how you distinguish it.
It's an extremely common tactic; by allowing themselves to assert that its "just pretend" when they want, but a "serious topic discussion" when they don't, its gives them the flexibility to believe in a consistent narrative that is not held up by facts whatsoever.
I dont believe anyone think its just pretend. Most people just have a real fear of jewsish anti-white propaganda as there is way too much evidence pointing to white-genocide being a real thing.

>>12088424
>Its much more fun (and productive) to pin down something concrete in conversation which the discussion revolves around.
Did i move the goalpost? My bad if i did.
>But I often find /pol/ just immediately shouts "FUCK JEWS FUCK NIGGERS" when you try to have any concrete conversation whatsoever, so I just ignore them for the most part
Yes but obviously thats just because its funny and most people dont have the energy to argue. I doubt its because they believe the only counters are done all by jews or nigs.

>>12087640

>>12088458
>IQ proven scientifically to be correct
It's good for identifying tards and terrible at identifying intelligence. Yet it is breathlessly mentioned in the same breath as phrenology because /pol/ is a place that, more than most other normally do, searches out answers that align with what they already believe.

You literally just used "da jews" to try and argue that "da jews" is not an actual tactic used by pol.

>>12088519
>and terrible at identifying intelligence
Kek

>>12088519
>You literally just used "da jews" to try and argue that "da jews" is not an actual tactic used by pol.
Saying its a ”tactic” doesnt mean its not valid

>>12087640
You wont get many men to stand beside you when you fly the swastika, but the men who do will be the best men this world has to offer son. The last knights of the west holding the line to keep everything from crumbling into ash while our own people spit at us. We risk everything we have for your future.


The most precious possession you have in the world is your own people. And for this people, and for the sake of this people, we will struggle and fight, and never slacken, never tire, never lose courage, and never lose faith. - AH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TMu7pKk1BAVY/

>>12088135
>source: second-hand accounts from cattle farmers
Get off /sci/

>>12087640
I nutted in your gf too OP, send me pics of my little fella when he is born

>>12089038
18+ website, my dude

>>12088407
/pol/, like /sci/ is 95% morons that just say stupid shit all the time and rarely know what they are talking about. There is every kind of political and philosophical alignment on /pol/ and countless shills so you trying to act like it is some organized political movement with a set of behaviors and beliefs shows you are disingenuous or stupid af

>>12087928
What has been proven? Microchimerism? I never said it was false, I said you (/pol/tard) misinterpret it. Fucking moron.

>>12088026
>>12087951
>>12088036
>>12088093
>>12088162
>>12088272
>>12088382
>>12088407
>>12088496
>>12089515

Look at the cope, I bet half you are justifying that kid that came out with curly hair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Morton%27s_mare

"he had bred an Arabian chestnut mare with a quagga stallion and that, subsequently, the same mare was bred with a black stallion and Lord Morton found that the offspring had strange stripes in the legs like the quagga."

The fucking horse had strippes, the effect is obviously quite blatant despite the Jewish science cope.

Idk what to do other then disregard everything in science unless a Nazi is saying it. I was prepared to drop this as pseudoscience but the amount of mental gymnastics I would have to do would be to taxing.

It's real, Jews cover this up to further their divisions and race mixing agenda. Nazis were right all along.

Unless you are a Jew or a sub 90 IQ brainlet this is the only conclusion one can reach. Who gives a shit if Nazis were evil, at least they did not lie to me. Hiding the truth is far more evil in my eyes, I have suffered from Telegony because neither me or my gf was educated on it and Jews are to blame.

God help us all, this is hell and Hitler was a saint. Why did I have to learn this crap from Neo Nazis on /pol/.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592

https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/sex-love/article/20756899/study-some-childless-women-may-carry-sex-partners-dna

https://www.pravdareport.com/health/94136-telegony/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084184/

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/09/09/russias-new-childrens-rights-official-thinks-your-uterus-can-remember-past-partners-a55290

>>12089953
retard