/sci/ - Science & Math

Now where's that "geneticist with a focus on mammalian embryology and developmental biology"
What can you tell about the research in your laboratory?

>>15294038
>We aim to correct that with productive discussion on the topic.
Some seriously wishful thinking there.

Anyway I'll just repeat the most common misunderstanding abused by /pol/tards. Complex traits and genetic associations do not work on the basis of mendelian inheritance, and anyone claiming causation from such association fundamentally lacks even babby's 1st basic knowledge on the subject.

- Subspecies is not a valid taxon.
- FST does not validate your racism.
- heritability does not mean inherited.
- Badly done research does not evidence anything but the fact it was badly done
- Research demonstrating how it was badly done is not "a conspiracy"
- Having a single study without understanding its context or relevance is about as useful as setting up a breeding farm with only geldings.

>>15294051
Sometimes you just have to DARE TO BE so stupid it somehow works.

Looking at your list... There a lot of work to be done. Let's begin then

>>15294051
>Subspecies is not a valid taxon.
No taxon is valid.
>heritability does not mean inherited.
1984 is here.
>Badly done research does not evidence anything but the fact it was badly done
Tautologies are limited in their information content, as correlating to yourself is redundant.
>Research demonstrating how it was badly done is not "a conspiracy"
Clearly not a native English speaker. Interesting sentence structure.
>Having a single study without understanding its context or relevance is about as useful as setting up a breeding farm with only geldings.
The phenotype of an NPC is one who uses language frivolously.
Remember, the spike protein is not a prion.

>>15294051
You have to go back (to the anthropology department).

>>15294060
>>15294065
>>15294066
Am I supposed to find something relevant in that drivel?
>No taxon is valid.
You clearly do not even know what "valid" meant in that context.

Shit-tier bait.

>>15294065
>No taxon is valid.
Not inherently, yes. We mostly have them because they're convenient
The actual tree of life is philogenetic (based on sequencing massive ammounts of DNA from all species you can find) and looks something like this

>>15294071
>Shit-tier bait.
Your post was pretty bad, but you don't need to announce it.

>>15294065
Everything else is attacks and hominem, grammar Naziism and logical phallacies.
You can try to formulate your criticisms better and then we can discuss them

>>15294073
With Leteral Gene Transfers I cannot see this tree as anything but a 3.5-Dimensional cloud.

>>15294080
That too.
It's nature, it doesn't have to adhere to a system that looks good on a 2d screen

As an example of horizontal transfer it is thought that the process of embryo connecting to the womb is borrowed from a virus that infected some protomammalian species
So no mammals without this freak incident

>>15294073
In case it was not obvious of course what I said about validity had nothing to do with that context, but rather its context within the rules (axioms if you like) of phylogeny and other classifications.

In the end the point ends up being the exact same. The reason phylogeny is ultimately a subjective enterprise without natural stopping points is the same reason racial classification is subjective without natural stopping point. So I find it rather funny he attempted to "pwn" me in a way that affirms my point anyhow.

>>15294093
>So no mammals without this freak incident
>FREAK?!
Nature is BEAUTIFUL! Always.

>>15294100
That the usual result when someone tries to fight you in your own field of expertise.

>>15294038
your women are sluts

>>15294107
You mean my relatives?

>>15294102
Typically only happens online. Shit stains like that in real life are mysteriously absent, and usually because they don't like being laughed at when someone has to patiently explain the equivalent of how Earth is not in fact flat.

>>15294108
>relatives
You're related to women?

>>15294116
That kind are online yes, but then you have dinasaur professors who are actually great for like 95% of things, but they just have that thing where they believe in some outdated theory because I to was verboten to challenge it when they were young
So as long as it doesn't interfere with your work you let it slide.
I actually had once at the physiology exam answered the question correctly by the lectures but then said that I don't believe that it's true. Luckily that did not inclur the wrath of the lector because they were not in the room ATM

>>15294121
Yes, some of my best friends are women
Biology is actually about 60/40 f/m if not more skewed

>>15294116
>Earth is not in fact flat.
Reality is a 1-Dimensional Klein Bottle with the inverted space (counter-space) being gravity, the same applies to all matter. This means the "4th dimension" is a physical one and time is a dynamic convertion of matter.

fite me

>>15294127
Never encountered that sort of thing. Anything of the sort tended to just be a misunderstanding over lack of clarity of whether one was speaking within a given set of axioms or criticizing the concept of the axioms themselves. Strong opinions on ones preferences for a given interpretation of a theory or hypothetical, sure, but not genuinely confusing the map for the territory.

Of course for coursework one has some constraints and it can get a bit messy if a student knows more about the subject than the class covers. That can happen, but one has to remember you're effectively teaching (depending on level) points of field consensus. I imagine it gets a lot worse with underpaid professors in shitty colleges who haven't updated their course in 20 years no doubt.

>>15294131
Eeeewwww humans are Guh-ROSS.

>>15294134
This is a biology general
Discuss your biological theories here
Thank you

>>15294137
More or less, yes. Lysenkoism was not abolished fully untill the 80s I believe, so that's the kind of baggage you're expected to get on the postsoviet territory
Not in Moscow probably, but they have much worce issues

>>15294139
>Earth is not in fact flat.
Stay in your lane and my Evolutionary Biology specialty is Global Evolution.

Secondly, evolution uses the earths electromagnetic field/charge to conjunct inter-species evolution (why the poison evolves simultaneously as thr resistance to it, not sequencially.)

Do you even GeoPhysics? No? K...well, your Biology is limpin', brah.

Inter-disciplinary or DEATH.

>>15294154
Pretty sure I read that pasta
I assume you sometimes write your own thoughts so I would appreciate if you did that going forward
Thanks for bumping I guess

>>15294162
Youre shit biologist and I will DESTROY any theory you propose.

Secondly, STUDENT, Professor Levine openly stated he needed to incorporate Physics for his Theory.

Third, what is Biology without Genetics? What is Genetics without Chemistry?

What does Chemistry use?

Quantum Mechanics.

YOU WILL FAIL EVERY STEP, SON.

>>15294171
https://youtu.be/9mi2NKZ37YE

OR. DEATH.

LEARN...OR DIE BEHIND.

>>15294151
Oh I get it now. Yes, that makes a lot more sense to me. I understand. Sorry if I came off as dismissive as in the US I don't know of anything that would parallel that.

>>15294079
>>15294071
Why would you want to engage with someone who spouts logical fallacies and shit-tier bait?
I know why I like engaging aphantasiacs like you.
It's fun.

>>15294080
Oh man, I am really starting to like this Cult of Passion guy.
He is the kind of autist this world needs.
My philosopher king.

>>15294181
It's ok, it's actually good that it's that way.
I can't find it quickly, but I read an article (from 2021 I believe) in a chemistry journal by a woman who is a Soviet Emirate. She warned against putting too much ideology into science and listed some Soviet examples. Not the best time and place for science, let's just say.
I've heard in China they sometimes get results by mandate just like they raise their GDP. That won't end well with 70% irreplicability as it is. People just twist statistics in their favour on assumption that future studies will correct for that. And then the next study never happens and the article just sits there collection citations.

>>15294191
Just kinda bored I guess
Can't fall asleep and need to go to work soon, so here I am. Too little time to do any work on the podcast.

Never been called an aphantasiac before... Might I inquire why you would consider me one?

>>15294199
Doesn't really apply to me. If I don't understand something I'm fairly dedicated to ensuring I fix that. There are plenty of claimants of such in the United States and in every single case I've investigated on that score, I find they've horribly misunderstood some crucial assumptions leading to their claims. Or complete ignorance of how the public often citing them misuse said claims, if not deliberately fostering them for notoriety.

Facts are one thing. What one chooses to do with any given set of facts is another entirely. I don't really meet many people who don't understand that difference except really dishonest ideologues. So argument over fact really has fuck all to do with "what one does", since "what one does" is more about how cynical somebody is.

>>15294208
He was implying you're an NPC because poltards don't know what aphantasia is.

>>15294208
I play roulette with reality.
Sometimes it checks out.

>>15294193
"Why yes, I *am* a Mathematical Biologist. How could you tell?"

>>15294211
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01475
Found the article

>>15294215
>>15294217
Oh, I see. Since I said that I'm Bipolar I thought he inferred something out of that.
Thanks for clarifying

>>15294236
Lol.
You need someone to tell you who you are.
I guess. Diversity must manifest somehow.

>>15294240
Not really
I'm just collecting monikers that are given to me like post stamps
Aphantasiac is new

I'm painfully aware that I'm a third rate biologist in a third rate lab in the third rate institute

>>15294228
Anyway, any thoughts on the article?

>>15294254
I kind of wouldn't end up disagreeing with the thesis regardless of the detail anyway, so none really. A recent example would be science journals like Nature advocating for a political candidate. Did nothing but reduce public perception of Nature and I think for good reason.

Since I agree with the point of the article I'm not sure what thoughts would matter. I certainly don't think people publishing or writing about things people have moral views on alone constitute reason for reprisal - that is to say "cancellation" - and doing so is short sighted stupidity. Once that hammer comes out it never goes back on the mantle where it should never have been removed.

So yeah, attempting "damnatio memoriae" or anathematization should not be acceptable. It is also another reason, over a decade ago, I went into finance instead of research. Tenure be damned there's nothing protecting you from being unpopular. All the reasons to take money over research every time. Being inevitably right at some distant point in the future and vindicated after your death does nothing to change ones life or the fact of being dead.

More than agreeing with the article I go even further. The indication that's where the winds are blowing will only and inevitably ensure a massive brain drain to private industry over university. Because fuck that shit.

>>15294267
The cyberpunk future is truly upon us then

Still, some big projects like the human genome project would require a lot of resources and government support (probably several countries would have to cooperate)
So it wont die out completely, is what I'm saying.

I also left, for the second time actually. I found it easier to take in 2 years doses with 1 year excursions into private and now completely unrelated work.
Health benefits are immense and the pay is ok

>>15294275
>So it wont die out completely, is what I'm saying.
And is overwhelmingly staffed and headed by boomers where you get to kiss their ass based on seniority with one wrong step getting you tossed out.

Generational biases and a kind of generational warfare still defines all hierarchies regardless of the institutions, and always have. So if I'm going to deal with that I am going to take the top dollar for it.
>The cyberpunk future is truly upon us then
Yeah well between people who think there's nothing wrong with cancellation, and the poltards inventing conspiracy theories bearing no resemblance to the reality of the problem, nobody's left actually identifying or dealing with the real problems. Relevant image. Trying to just gets to ideologically placed in the other camp whether in personal conversation or professional life, so only a real autistic idiot or someone with nothing to lose would try.

>>15294285
I it a worldwide phenomenon or only in the Metropole (US)?

>>15294285
>Yeah well between people who think there's nothing wrong with cancellation, and the poltards inventing conspiracy theories bearing no resemblance to the reality of the problem, nobody's left actually identifying or dealing with the real problems. Relevant image. Trying to just gets to ideologically placed in the other camp whether in personal conversation or professional life, so only a real autistic idiot or someone with nothing to lose would try.
Merely dissenting with the collapsing orthodoxy gets you labeled as a "poltard."

>>15294285
>>15294275
Hahahaha I thought of a funny relevant reframing here of a common sentiment, "evil triumphs when good men do nothing". As usual the onus is misplaced. Rather, evil triumphs when good men are better off doing nothing.

It's funny how many sayings are "almost right catastrophically mistaken" on that score. Explains why we have so many problems given the onus is perpetually misplaced. "Hey die (metaphorically or literally) for the good because we say so, and no we won't value your doing so if it costs us anything but maybe someone will notice in future" fuck right off.
>>15294293
I sincerely doubt, aside from circumstantial luck, people can avoid the problem anywhere. I'm pretty sure it's a universal human problem and nobody has ever bothered to highlight it. As usual, banality of evil is quite banal and unnoticed.
>>15294298
>Merely dissenting with the collapsing orthodoxy gets you labeled as a "poltard."
What gets you labeled a poltard is not even understanding the basics of a subject before crafting conspiracy theories. Rather than realizing you're an ignorant dipshit you lot make self-justifying victim narratives like this one pretending to be the sacrificial good guys. Sorry pal, you're not. You're a different flavor of "the problem".

Not that anyone honestly pointing that out to you would ever change your mind. Goes with the whole "and that's why the problems won't get fixed" part.

>>15294228
Why talk about that when there is Science to pwnt.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157322004069?via%3Dihub

I...minored in Molecular/Cellular Biology as it was a stepping stone into higher/lower fields.

>>15294139
THIS IS BIOLOGY GENERAL, Private.

B^l

>>15294303
>What gets you labeled a poltard is not even understanding the basics of a subject before crafting conspiracy theories. Rather than realizing you're an ignorant dipshit you lot make self-justifying victim narratives like this one pretending to be the sacrificial good guys. Sorry pal, you're not. You're a different flavor of "the problem".
>Not that anyone honestly pointing that out to you would ever change your mind. Goes with the whole "and that's why the problems won't get fixed" part.
This is exactly what I mean.

>>15294308
...it...has the word "pol" in it, guys...c'mon..

>>15294285
I mean how expensive is the current basic biological set of equipment for a home lab?
You'll need to do PCR, probably electrophoresis, a centrifuge, a good microscope, lots of glassware and plastic utilities...
Or if you get high enough in the private that you could borrow their lab during nonworking hours to do some stuff

>>15294311
I think people in generaly greatly underestimate the power of "knowing what the fuck you're doing" and the benefit of all the data available publicly. There's plenty to be picked over based on other people's data, it just often requires good understanding of databases, mathematics, reasoning, and so on. Some creativity in proxies and hypothesis testing gets you a long way and a lot more than infinite funding tends to.

That is, if you really wanted to try. Other than "for fuckin fun" I don't see the point.

>>15294303
> I'm pretty sure it's a universal human problem and nobody has ever bothered to highlight it. As usual, banality of evil is quite banal and unnoticed
Not really. From what I know Lamark did not deal with this, he had French Revolutions though

>>15294322
>Not really. From what I know Lamark did not deal with this, he had French Revolutions though
Those opposing Lamark sure did. You might be too tired to follow, but yeah any given ideological takeover is a problem where it exists. But the generational problems and fundamental self-preserving nature of ALL institutions has always been a problem. "New boss same as the old boss".

>>15294321
Oh yeah, I basically almost don't need to come to the institute exept for the experiment batteries. Everything else is just busywork to pass time and write administrative papers
My old laptop can do everything else

>>15294328
Lamarck* your misspelling went viral on me. Feck

>>15294328
Are you the same guy that I discussed with in the doomer thread?

>>15294310
>This is exactly what I mean.
Nope, and I can prove it. Because of what I said here >>15294321 and the fact anyone who knows anything knows what I said is true >>15294331
You idiots have contributed nothing. At all. Like flat earthers who totally claim they've got a working model that mysteriously never appears.

If you could have, you would have. None of you can so none of you do. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you shits have no pudding.
>>15294335
Yeah sometimes I like flights of fancy and philosophizing at my navel. Doesn't mean I don't think I have a point but I don't put much stock in future divination.

>>15294332
Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, chevalier de Lamarck

People really dragged him through the mud and now just ignore the fact that epigenetics are derived from his theories

>>15294340
Again, you're just proving my point. All I had to do was say that dissent is shoved aside with thought-terminating cliches and you instantly began to use them to shove aside my comment. It's like a Pavlovian reaction in so many of the institutionalized. I've seen it with many of my own colleagues, though oddly enough not as often with my former professors.

>>15294345
Still waiting on that pudding pal. I'll eat it whenever you serve. Keep proving my point.
>>15294344
Eeeh rarely any use in trying to argue in any event and epigenetics has about as much to do with Lamarck as modern atomic theory has to do with epicurean writings mentioning atoms. Or that's my opinion anyway.

>>15294350
I don't mean the actual current theory, but the general growth of biological thought.
The breakthrough was in ww2 with that village where the results of the mother's starvation were present in the children, if I recall

>>15294356
I think you're referring to the "dutch hunger-winter" related research? That always gets brought up so yeah.

>>15294358
Yes that's the one. It was repeated in Leningrad also, I think.

>>15294350
I shouldn't bother but goddamn here I go anyway.
>>15294345
Nothing I said indicated anything about preventing such attempt in the first place. Any good professor, likewise, would encourage a student to investigate something to their satsifaction as that often lends itself to avenues of interest for students.

Here's the thing: What I said is about demonstration. That is not a dismissal out of hand, that is a dismissal on lack of SHOWING anything worth seeing. By experience, not "thought termination". If all you have is a victim complex and some cute self narrative of nobody understanding you like an edgy teenager, sorry pal, world won't give a shit and neither did any of your professors. Whole point in encouraging someone to explore an avenue is to get them to practice the tools and methods of investigation and learn how to not be a fuck up. But this isn't your university and I'm not your pappy or professor, so all I care about is "do you have any good fuckin evidence or not".

Real world only cares about results. Nobody's going to hold your hand if you don't have any good results. That you don't seem to "get" this and revert to some emo moping about it has nothing to do with anything. Results, the pudding, and the eating. So go find it or fuck off is how the real world works.

I thought this thread would be talking about interesting proteins and genes and evolution. Wtf is this shit

>>15294340
>flat earthers
In a 1-dimensional world there is no flat, you merely percieve flat because its projecting towards you from all directions.

>Phenomenology, Physiology, Cognition...
*yawn*...

>>15294374
I know, right?...it immediately went into pol then...office drama.

>>15294369
>Real world only cares about results. Nobody's going to hold your hand if you don't have any good results. That you don't seem to "get" this and revert to some emo moping about it has nothing to do with anything. Results, the pudding, and the eating. So go find it or fuck off is how the real world works.
The "real world" has a lot more to do with institutional politics than results. You would be familiar with this, maybe even personally acquainted, if you got a Ph.D and entered the academy yourself. Dissertation chairs playing fuck-fuck games to get you to follow their preferred line of reasoning is only the first of the numerous examples of how results are thrown away due to personal bias.
That's not to say that politically unpopular ideas are never allowed into the light. A group of undergrads proved that Gould fabricated his data in The Mismeasure of Man to claim that cranial volume measurements were racist. They were allowed to publish, but since they did those results have been met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the politically motivated among the sciences. Meanwhile Gould's history of academic fraud has largely been handwaved. One can see by the reception why specious accusations of political bias seem to only swing one way.

>>15294376
I'm not ignoring you because I don't get it. I'm ignoring you because I do, and you're not anywhere near as clever as you think you are. "Words that end in GRY"

>>15294374
>>15294380
Try asking a question on the subject or saying something to start the discussion

>>15294382
Post to your posts so I can destroy you you little wannabe faggot. Im smarter than you could Literally Comprehend, midwit.

YOU WILL NEVER BE RESPECTED IN YOUR FIELD.

DEAL WITH IT.

B^l

I have...
>>15293823
Choose a field, brah...fukken EAT YOU ALIVE.

>>15294381
Yeah, defence of the dissertation is something akin to a ritual humiliation by your future peers, as my mentor said. You bleat like a sheep and then get accepted into the flock.

>>15294385
>Try asking a question
Why would the Master ask a student a question?
>or saying something to start the discussion
Did; >>15294308

Try posting Science instead of getting inbetween two men fighting like an oblivious woman that gets herself and her man killed trying to overpower an elephant.

>>15294386
>Worthless schizophrenic spergs out

>>15294392
Thanks, I neede a good laugh since I need to power through the day with 4 hours of sleep

>>15294381
>The "real world" has a lot more to do with institutional politics than results. You would be familiar with this, maybe even personally acquainted, if you got a Ph.D and entered the academy yourself. Dissertation chairs playing fuck-fuck games to get you to follow their preferred line of reasoning is only the first of the numerous examples of how results are thrown away due to personal bias.
HA, okay, you get a point for the reference "playing fuck-fuck games". Even so, nothing you've said is news to me. Nothing you've said is dissimilar from private. There's a reason, a lot of them, I opted for MORE money rather than sucking institutional dick for LESS money. The problem is that it changes nothing about what I've said merely because you can't get the perfect experiment design you want just because you want it.

So therein lies the problem: Throw a toddler tantrum for not getting it your way, or get creative in getting your way anyway because that's just how the world works. No I'm not excusing that, no I'm not saying that's a good thing. The fact it is nonetheless possible, and I know that it is personally as I do it all the time to satisfy my curiosity. Being told "no" does not warrant throwing up your hands declaring conspiracy and playing victim. That just means you're not clever enough and don't want the truth enough.
>That's not to say that politically unpopular ideas are never allowed into the light. A group of undergrads proved that Gould fabricated his data in The Mismeasure of Man to claim that cranial volume measurements were racist.
Sure seems to me a lot of criticism from academics is readily available so I've no idea what you think you're implying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Criticism
Also: why the fuck would I care about Gould? I care about the research and actual results, not popular books that always and inevitably spin narratives.

>>15294394
OWNED.

WALK, BOY. Get the FUCK out here. Charlatan jackass.

I like moss.

I like fucking with turtles and they hiss.

>>15294395
An experience I've suffered many a time. See you space cowboy

AND I LIKE STOMPING CHARLATANS.

>>15294396
>Also: why the fuck would I care about Gould? I care about the research and actual results, not popular books that always and inevitably spin narratives.
Why would you care about the most influential new-school evolutionary biologist committing frequent scientific fraud to satisfy his political goals? I don't know, but maybe someone smarter than me could figure that out.

Let's talk about making humans female biased in size dimorphism, big fecund women and small athletic men

>>15294411
>punctuated equilibrium
Thats because species altering evolution happens in a single lifetime, the one where external pressures force genetic change. I had experienced myself and discovered Rh- blood was two genes, octopus and oyster, and explains the copper blood and well as thr myth of "blue blood".

B^l

60 seconds of research....

>>15294411
Jesus H. Christ on rollerskates I do not care if you consider someone's opinions in a book to be fraudulent. Welcome to the world of popular book publishing where I've never read a single book I didn't want to burn. That is not the point.

You claimed here >>15294381 some massive institutional barriers. Your example, rather than research publications, constitute a book that ISN'T a scientific publication and claims of people not being allowed to challenge it. Even were I to accept the standard of "some book says a thing" it's fairly self evident plenty of people, probably quite rightly, criticized it.

Now, please pay attention. That has nothing to do with what I said here >>15294396. You can whine all day or your whole life that people disagree with you, but it doesn't mean a single thing. "Life is hard" does not mean "therefore you're right". Read, again, what I wrote here >>15294369

I don't care about your victim narrative. Proof is in the pudding and nobody deserves any credence until said putting is presented for eating. So either get clever about it or mope, but don't persist in this ridiculous fantasy where just because you think you have it hard you must be in the right.

>>15294423
>I've never read a single book I didn't want to burn

Hey, have you read this? I need an authorative review...being schizo and all I cant read.

. .

Alright, I hope the initial momentum to derail is pent, this getting out of hand, so I will propose a topic of discussion.
http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1
How close are we to completing the metabolic pathway system like this?

>>15294434
Everything evolves back to crab, Anon...and crabs pinch charlatans.

Dont know why, they just do.

>>15294434
Afraid once you start talking biochem autism unless it's related to intersections of modeling and whatnot I'd have no relevant input. Those days are looong gone for me.
>How close are we to completing the metabolic pathway system like this?
But I am confused by the question. Isn't that kind of like asking "Hey how much left do we not know"? You can't know until you already know. Well, infer maybe, based on model predictive accuracy. Clarify?

>>15294446
The number of processes in the body as well as the number of genes we can silence without outright making a model animal dead on arrival Is limited, right? So we do have max ceiling
The more reasonable ceiling would be to work out everything involved in diseases that are common
Even more reserved would be to find out how does Alzheimer's work and how to treat it
How about that?

>>15294458
That's basically the best we've got and all we do is try to find a treatment based on this hypothesis while simultaneously bashing it without any good alternative.

>>15294376
>*yawn*...
I hear that yawning oxygenates the brain.
Excellent.

>>15294458
>The number of processes in the body as well as the number of genes we can silence without outright making a model animal dead on arrival Is limited, right? So we do have max ceiling
I am not quite sure that's a very comforting observation given the complexity of the systems involved. I wanted to make sure my general remarks on complexity theory were actually relevant so I checked a bit, and this seems relevant if jargon-heavy https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2019.00158/full and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28287976/ and so on given various problems on diagnostics and disease progression appear to be variously so-described as "NP-hard". Just two examples I found others of course, as disease modeling seems largely reliant on heuristics and so forth. Granted what seems intuitively likely to me could be very wrong, regardless, as I'm hardly some batman-genetic-pathology-computational-wizard and nothing I do ever really involves the need for such analysis. Take it with the bottle of salt it needs.

I'm just throwing some remarks out as it seems unlikely anyone else will try. You know how it goes. You catch more fish by being wrong.
>The more reasonable ceiling would be to work out everything involved in diseases that are common
I really don't think that's a reachable ceiling lol. Given metabolic networks are NP-hard to construct. (see here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519308003706?via%3Dihub))
>Even more reserved would be to find out how does Alzheimer's work and how to treat it
That being said what I think it all amounts to is you're far more likely to hit upon ways of treating diseases like Alzheimer's than you are independently discovering metabolic pathway algorithms doing it in advance of inferential-heuristics hitting upon the solution. If that is what you meant. I apologize if not.

So maybe my thoughts have some use, maybe I am inadvertently full of shit.

>>15294541
Nah, it's always good to have general negative results as they narrow down your field of search dramatically.
I guess we could fetch AI to do it as people who are obsessed with it will have enough gal to try. Maybe something will come out of brute forcing (after all, we discovered almost all of the medicinal herbs that way historically). But that's sci fi for now so let's focus on what could be actually done.
WHO declared Alzheimer's to be one of the main fields that need research in 2018 if I remember correctly, and not much progress has been made even still despite all of the effort and finding.
It's clear that some other approach is nessesary if we want to speed this up. Would be nice if we had several approaches converging on the goal.

>>15294661
A point on that. Given the complexity of the problem I do not think brute forcing solutions are feasible due to the unlikelihood of success in any reasonable amount of time. Also, the manner in which herb related relevance was tested is sort of what we ordinarily do anyway. Inference based heuristics, and something akin to a sympathetic-magic way of looking at the world. In and of itself it does work "after a fashion" but that isn't really what is implied by bruteforcing in this case.

I'd be genuinely surprised if we have truly run out of inferential heuristics to throw at the problem. Then again I am not a medical person so what the fuck do I know.

Funnily enough, however, Alzheimer's is a golden poster child example of where people go wrong with genetic correlates i.e. being it is highly heritable yet not at all (except the rare familial case) hereditary.

>>15294661
The main issue as usual is early diagnosis. When the Simptoms are undeniable, it's too late. It's been to late for years now.
The early symptoms are usually brushed up to forgetfulness and are compensated by notes and other mnemonic techniques.
Constant testing of massive ammounts of potential patients appears to be too expensive right now and there is nothing like a blood test to determine it easily at the early stages.
There are ways to lower the chance or at least slow down the development, mostly regular activities that induce noticeable brain activity, be they logical exercises or creative tasks. Crossword puzzles for example.
General health is also good, of course.
But I guess we can't really start a general fitness program and compel retired people to think about complex subjects regularly, because who would pass that kind of law...

>>15294689
Yes, Theophrastus proposed using colour to determine similar characteristics in different plants and other such things

I'm more concerned with sporadic form which is much more prevalent and is kind of inevitable starting with 65 years of age with the chance of it beginning rising every year. If people didn't pass away from other things we would probably have a nearby 100% rate of neurodegenerative disorders by the age of 130

>>15294696
Even if you can diagnose it early, there's no effective treatment
Only different measures of success in slowing it down.
Now granted, who would want to live more that 100 with all the deterioration that happens without Alzheimer's, but we are far from delaying it so far that it's essentially a solution

>>15294702
>If people didn't pass away from other things we would probably have a nearby 100% rate of neurodegenerative disorders by the age of 130
Entropy inevitably comes for all and will for all things. To make peace with death is to be at peace with the inevitable.We ain't /med/ so I am more interested in the biology than pathophysiology/etiology of disease aspect.

Though on the scale of biology it is interesting to note that entropy related malfunctioning may yet provide good explanation, and is hardly a new notion. e.g. that such degeneration and malfunctioning of resource "reserves" or the like probably determine likelihood of declines or outcomes thereof. Would also help explain why exercise post-diagnosis did not seem all that preventative.

I don't want to end up just being a copy of /med/ so the focus is rather more on biological aspects and, so I take it, theories and computation pertaining to such processes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7683386/
And please note citing literature at the bottom here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345728362_Brain_Entropy_Mapping_in_Healthy_Aging_and_Alzheimer's_Disease

In particular https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366250930_Improving_the_effectiveness_of_anti-aging_modalities_by_using_the_constrained_disorder_principle-based_management_algorithms

and such notions of biological systems where, rather than going the route of working backward from the system and its chemistry and systems, from the principle of entropy and one might say "error tolerance" or variability in biology. Seems to me like it makes a fair series of points on that score with respect to aging-related decline or functioning of any given component of biological systems. Psome variation on "stress-response": "constrained disorder".

Whether such higher-order thinking about the problem has any real use beyond a lens of analysis, I am not sure.

>>15294736
>>15294702
Ha, a funny thought. In the abstract then one could consider it a disease that, under a certain light, is runaway compensatory entropy due to absence of sufficient variability. So the funny thought was this effectively means that your body is fucking bored. Ahahahaha

>>15294736
Yeah, I sometimes feel like I'm a bad version of a neurologist when I go deep into this subject.

Seems interesting, particularly this figure (in the pic) is very pleasing to my eyes
Brain is a very adaptive system, even in older age but it seems that the general descrease in cognitive function is hampering this ability to adapt, which seems logical.
I wonder if some background stimulation like with the cardiac pacemaker can help control the level of BEN or am I getting it completely wrong?
It is worthwhile to discuss if we consider fundamental knowledge a worthy endeavour. It can be useful later down the line.

>>15294823
More like getting past it's expiration date since you're not really helping with anything but wisdom in a tribe after a certain point.

>>15294838
No I mean in terms of biology. That means analogously the entropic processes accelerate in a word due to "boredom" i.e. the lack of variability of stressors. It isn't very interesting if people just puke out social judgments like that. It was a funny analogy only in terms of analogizing biological systems and entropy progression.

>>15294859
I guess I don't really get the humour then
That's fine, it's probably on me

So the squid has penis arms? Will giving it the handshake be a handjob then?

I'm looking for a grown up dinosaur book which traces the history of life from it's theoretical origins to now
Any suggestions?
I've been listening to podcasts on it and what I find interesting is things like the Burgess Shale, how there can be genes already within a multitude of lifeforms DNA but then something happens that that gene suddenly becomes useful and the lifeforms capitalise on their advantage, IIRC there was something about the development of a hard shell
Also the idea that there was very simple life for a VERY long time and that during this time a lot of the genes that would then go on to be used were developed?
I don't remember much about biology but I studied it in High School and did one semester in university

>>15294953
Btw I'm not really that interested in dinosaurs
Also I was just listening to a podcast and it said that the landmass on earth was just rocky and that plant left crept slowly across the surface, but that since there wasn't any soil on it, soil had to be developed very slowly over time through the mechanical force of roots and chemical processes
Also that at a certain point a lot of the ocean life and plant life died off, potentially due to the ozone layer thinning

>>15294954
>Also I was just listening to a podcast and it said that the landmass on earth was just rocky and that plant left crept slowly across the surface, but that since there wasn't any soil on it, soil had to be developed very slowly over time through the mechanical force of roots and chemical processes
This seems like quite a bizarre argument. Weathering and microbes would have produced some sort of suitable soil, just not the kind of highly organic soil we grow our food in now. You can look at plants growing on old lava flows for an idea of how fertile an apparently rocky and inhospitable environment can be.

>>15294957
Well you have an organic component and an inorganic component in soil and in order for the inorganic component to be generated you'd need to break the rocks up
Anyway this supposedly took a very long time and the plants weren't the plants we think of today

>>15294960
We really don't have the faintest clue what the earliest environments of Earth were like, but it's a lot more exciting to spin a yarn about it based on assumptions.

>>15294975
It is a rather well studied subject.
Erosion and other abiotic factors can form the nessesary prefertile soil just fine.
Geology in general was very developed by the beginning of the 19th century and very important for the development of the evolutionary theory as the processes are similar in nature

>>15294960
Correct, they were situated on the shore and looked something like this. Just as with the fish and amphibians, they needed water to procreate so they couldn't go too far into dry pleces

>>15294975
That's disappointing to hear
The podcast I was listening to was mostly focused on the Late Devonian extinction so there was a lot of speculation about the causes
Things like the development of soil leading to algae blooms in the ocean causing die off in the oceans due to a lack of oxygen
Carbon sink with the development of plant life leading to the cooling of the planet
Is this mostly a yarn that scientists don't consider worth spending their time on? It was an exciting yarn nonetheless
That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in, the soil part especially because I never thought about how it's possible for a soilless mass to become covered with soil

>>15294953
Hmm, I would suggest choosing one more specific topic and getting into the field that way.
Is there any particular period of time or a species that intrigues you.
As for the genes evolving and then staying neutral for a long time until they become usefull, that is true, but there are other ways.
For example, prolactin is obviously associated with production of the milk in mammals among other things, but it was present in almost the same form as far back as bony fishes where it has a different function.

>>15295009
>Is this mostly a yarn that scientists don't consider worth spending their time on? It was an exciting yarn nonetheless
On the contrary there is a lot of work on the topic, but not all of it follows the line their speculation seems to have. One theory, which I think is very interesting, suggests that it was evolution that caused the mass extinction. In essence, the surviving organisms in each ecological niche within the early ocean were so superior to their competitors that they won a war of attrition. It will appear that their competitors all died off in one slice of geologic time, but if true it may have taken hundreds or thousands of years to occur.

Anyway as long as they're willing to say it's speculation then that's fine. I just find that pop-sci sources often overstate their confidence in prehistoric events. We don't even know with complete certainty where anatomically modern humans arose, and that was only 500kya-2mya.

>>15295009
That depends on what scientists you're talking about
Evolutionary biologists are very different from molecular biologists and those that specialize in bioinformatics and such
It one of the widest fields of study
Unfortunately currently biologists don't spend too much time on the things you describe if they want to specialise into anything other than fields that deal with it.

>>15295023
Not every living thing that lived back then left fossils for us to study or if there's anything left it's very little.
So we can't really say if it was a huge extinction or just o a lot of things that didn't leave fossils slowly went extinct

>>15294953
>genes already within a multitude of lifeforms DNA but then something happens that that gene suddenly becomes useful
Atavism.

The genes [[[Geneticists]]] called "Junk DNA" because they were Chemists, not Biologists. Gotta be careful about your Gene researcher's origins, Bio=Safer, Chem=Beware...they can be soulless Devil is disguise.

>>15295008
That is a very cool image
I thought it was a photograph but is apparently just a reconstruction, it's amazing to think that we actually have fossils of this
>>15295021
How interesting is the study of early life forms up to multicellular life? Stuff like Archaea too
I find things like that prolactin example you gave to be very fascinating
>>15295032
Do you think that's a weakness in the field?
Like are evolutionary biologists forced to speculate about things they don't have an expertise in because of a lack of collaboration with molecular biologists
>>15295023
Well it was for a popular audience but the podcast had 3 professors on it to discuss the topic
>>15295044
Yeah I remember learning about that in high school
IIRC it's kind of a simplification and we've realised that things are way more complex than just 'Junk DNA'?
I've tried looking into epigenetics but it's hard to wrap your head around

>>15295058
Yeah, those fossils we do have thankfully.
Well, there is a lot of different things to study from a certain point when the diversity of life truly began. That is what I find the most interesting at that early period.
Others are fascinated with the process of organic matter becoming alive and then acquiring the nessesary machinery to start populating the world.
It's like a flooded basement in the house where the lights are out. It's much harder too look but the sence of the adventure and the promise of some truly remarkable finding is there

>>15295058
>epigenetics
Yeah, to *really* wield that stick you need some weapons grade autism.

When I travel the world I use my eidetic memory to store hudreds of thousands of human faces. Every city I visit I'll spend a few days walking through it scanning every face I see and meta-analyzing them just like an AI. Honestly I do this by default and I cannot stop but when I first visit a place its very consciouss and deliberate. Tracking and comparing historical and physical migrations.

Biblical bloodlines live...and so does the Devil...

>>15295079
>epigenetics
Or Meta-Genetics, honestly my Genetic works dont have a name yet, as the field doesnt know that what Im studying even exists.

>>15295058
It certainly is but not just in biology, in all sciences.
Just like in Pixar when animators and programmers were put into one room and worked together their output became much better, there needs to be crosstalk between the fields of study. Unfortunately the way grants and other administrative work goes that's disencentivised. Just looking at the history of such events it usually happens not in a lab but in an elevator or in the smoking room or something like that where those specialists that often studied together can interact for a bit.
There are pitfalls in this approach, but I feel it's a good idea long-term wise.
Be careful with the CoP guy, he spams a lot of things to trigger people.

>>15295058
I guess it would be ok to mention that I have my own podcast and that I'm a huge fan of history podcasts
I would suggest trying so 2 since audio quality on the 1st one is pretty bad.
https://youtu.be/PGf8mbLQX-8

>>15294285
>poltards inventing conspiracy theories bearing no resemblance to the reality of the problem
It's mostly well poisoners doing this, that's my conspiracy theory.

/sci/ really needs post IDs

>>15295107
Thats why I put one on...The name is irrelevent, go roll a a random one.

>>15294833
https://www.alzint.org/resource/world-alzheimer-report-2022/
A fun read

>>15295102
>It's mostly well poisoners doing this, that's my conspiracy theory.
I think a lot of it was originally, and much of it still is, generated by trolls laughing at idiots buying whatever gets shared by boomer memes. Since much of it involves blatant falsehoods, false attributions, irrelevant citations, or even contradictory citation. You get a similar thing among flat earthers where people generate a bunch of outright lies and various idiots just believe it because it's convenient.

So there's no real conspiracy needed. Hate to be the debbie downer but in my experience no matter how blatant the lie of an image is the person parroting the lie will not change their mind EVEN IF they're forced to admit they were a gullible moron. Such people aren't interested in science they just want ammunition. Conclusion shoppers really.

Good biology audiobooks ? No, I am not joking.

t. Mathematician.

>>15294458
>The number of processes in the body as well as the number of genes we can silence without outright making a model animal dead on arrival Is limited, right?
theres always time sensitive knockouts or for multicellular life cell specific knockouts and of course theres also knockdowns. and for a complete analysis you should try to save some of those dead on arrival phenotypes with other knockouts/knockins. sounds like a huge amount of avenues to explore to me. i dont think its likely we are reaching a limit on what we can know in that regard in the next few centuries.

>>15295457
>Good biology audiobooks
I enjoyed these 4, they dont get retarded technical but enough to get deeper concepts like "hybridization, symbiosis etc".

Regenisis is RETARDED. I hear he was the Geneticist that worked for Epstein's search for "ubermench" (in himself or others, idk) but his hypothesis and suprise to certain results were hyper-midwit.

I guess money cant by intelligence....

>>15295648
Though the Invention of Nature is quasi autobiography about a polymath in Evironmental Genetics/Meta-Genetics.

>>15294065
The "tautology" is trying to illustrate the fallacy fallacy, retard.

>>15294162
CoP is a bot.

>>15295689
Yes. Never forget it.

Wear a name tag and I will NEVER forget you or your mistakes...

>>15295694

>Wear a name tag and I will NEVER forget you or your mistakes...

Oh really ... :D

>>15295746

>>15295814

>>15295848

>>15295853

Jeez!!

WTF is going on with this tread?

>>15294051
>FST does not validate your racism
Here we go again brining social politics into the natural sciences. Nobody fucking cares about you or any of your ideas on how people should treat each other. Keep it /sci/ related or get out.

>>15295457
Try The selfish gene 1979.
I know I mention it a lot and R. Dawkins can be a bit much now, but that's a really good book even still for some reason.
There is no Extended phenotype audiobook unfortunately, but that book is a sequel and in some ways even better
Didn't read the other biology books he wrote unfortunately, might be good too

>>15296148

>>15296162
There's a whole field of bioethics which is mandatory to study for a reason, anon

>>15296168
I don't mind a bit of tomfoolery, but only if it is balanced by some discussion

>>15296174

Yeah, right. That other guy screeching at me threw me a bit off my footing ...

>The field of biology is widely misrepresented and misunderstood on /sci/ and in general, even among other STEM researchers.

No shit, that was the actual point that drew me in here to begin with! Uhm ... yeah ... can agree with that. Can't see deeper than the bottom of their damn petri dishes.

>>15296171
Yes, there is. It involves clinical trials, animal testing, conflicts of interest, gain of function research, etc. (ie real problems related to doing biology research) not your social political agenda with modern definitions of "racism".

>>15296194
You are aware of the fact that restrictions on animal testing are in part in place to not allow inhumane practices and needles cruelty, right?
So there is another part the field that deals with proper conduct on humans as test subjects.
You may say we treat them too lightly with restrictions on the kinds of research that is done.
I ask what goal aside from fundamental understanding are you trying to achieve and isit worth the consequences?
Not all research can be, nor should be, done, for practical and pragmatic reasons.

TLDR we live in a society, your research doesn't exist in a vacuum. You may be dissatisfied with the current levels of bureaucracy and corruption, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>>15296224
>equating inhumane practices to "racism" and /pol/ bait in the year of our lord 2021.
Anon, I understand your argument and I mostly agree in principle. In practice we all know that modern universities now use the premise of science to push social political agendas which frankly are really irrelevant to their fields.

>>15296224
>>15296269
>2021
Typo, obv meant 2023

>>15296269
I'm completely invented with academia and I agree. But I'm not from The West so we have our own issues that owershsdow that one.

I just think they are past a point of no return and the current system will go offline at some point. It might be restructured and brought back or might be replaced by a different system later on.

And so I look past that and try to start pulling back like the FTL ship turning around at a half point of their journey and start to decelerate the process of keep the "politics out of science' becouse the extreme version of that might seem not likely now, but is actually very likely to happen soon as the tools for research become more and more available to everyone who's motivated to use them.

Does that make any sense?

>>15294661
Turns out we had some progress... Into a fraud scandal to push drugs for big pharma.. go figure my specific field of research gets disgraced that way in this hellish year of 2022...

>>15296349
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

>>15296349

>go figure my specific field of research gets disgraced that way in this hellish year of 2022...

Glad I got out right before that shitshow started ...

>>15296335
Yeah it makes sense that there will be different problems if/when the pendulum swings the other way with politics.
I try to make the distinction between a real social issue that is directly caused by research (atomic bomb for example) and something that a scientist/university uses to push an agenda of their choosing to benifit themselves or other certain parties. That distinction will likely always be a problem in whatever system is implemented.
Regardless, I think I'm on the same page as you at this point.

>>15296162
>Here we go again brining social politics into the natural sciences.
If it wasn't for other people doing that here, chronically, I wouldn't need to correct them for being wrong. Weird how you're blaming the wrong party for that.

>>15296171
>>15296403
On another level I think the problem here is misunderstanding my motive. I don't care that they're racists, the same way I don't care that antivaxxers die in droves for their stupidity. They're just wrong about their claims pertaining to science in both cases. The same way I do not care if someone is a democrat or republican, or Christian, or Muslim. The things each "type" of person ends up focusing on and what they're wrong about variously changes but it matters very little.

It's really quite simple. What you choose to do with the facts of your world has very little to do with the facts themselves. Case in point nobody has ever changed their mind even for admitting they've been gullible and got tricked by boomer memes. Since they're all going to be retarded anyway the important part isn't to bother altering their politics or wasting time doing so. Rather, it is simply trying to ensure science doesn't get shat up by their various retardations.

I've done the same thing correcting an equal level of ignorance and bullshit from retarded blank slatists who think IQ somehow isn't a meaningful way to quantify intelligence. I don't fucking care about the petty squabbling I care about ignorance driven emotional reifying of ideological fantasies. We are not the same. That such people are then left without good reason to justify their emotion-driven bullshit is not my problem, but it also won't get them to change their mind either.

>>15296477
I agree for the most part and thus maybe we can move the the second stage: discuss ideas instead of trying to prove your convictions
It happens very rarely lately because it is sometimes difficult to determine which of the two it is without context and time for both parties to show their hand
It's like that dice game where you guess what your opponent has.

With that said

Do you think there is some point where the gradual population wide increases in IQ will stop correlating with the intelectual output of society?
There must be a ceiling, or more likely a platou, right?

>>15296609
>Do you think there is some point where the gradual population wide increases in IQ will stop correlating with the intelectual output of society?
I do not believe there is a meaningful way to define what one means by "intellectual output" that does not merely reduce to subjective value judgments. So the answer simply depends on what things you value rather than something objectively measurable.
>There must be a ceiling, or more likely a platou, right?
Since it is a nonsense question to ask, and I do not say that for lack of thought on the possible definitions, this has no answer either. Sofar as individuals go we have come nowhere near realizing in any particular individual some upper limit, I think, given the neurological associations. We may also never do so.

>>15296449
>blaming the wrong party
I don't know where you're from, but in The West, it is the political left who is in control of universities and the narratives that come out of them including narratives that use science as a rationale. If you think otherwise you are completely delusional.

>>15296663
Do not care about your whining. This is not /pol/. If you don't like my correcting people for being factually wrong as pertains to inferences from sciences like biology, that is not my problem. The only delusional person here is you for projecting your idiotic politicizing onto me. Kindly fuck off.

>>15296663
>>15296449
Also since you're retarded you may not have realized "party" in that sentence meant me. A party to the conversation. Not "a political party". You fucking idiot.

>>15296667
>>15296669
Don't care, still voting for Trump.

>>15296667
You can be correcting people for being factually wrong all you want. Just do it when they actually are wrong instead of preemptively whining about potential wrong-think. It's extremely insufferable
>>15296669
Oh my God no way I had one interpretation of a word with multiple meanings when you meant the other meaning I must be an idiot. Take your anger management issues elsewhere.

>>15296814
>Just do it when they actually are wrong instead of preemptively whining about potential wrong-think
Almost like there was a context to it with respect to spawning this thread. Another thing you are unaware of. Learn to ask questions.
>Oh my God no way I had one interpretation of a word with multiple meanings when you meant the other meaning I must be an idiot.
You're not an idiot due to some "anger issues" I have. You're an idiot because you do not think to ask questions, or ask if something is ambiguous to you, or realize you've made a mistake from ambiguity. Idiocy is refusal to self-correct or reconsider positions even after added context and prompting, but instead a continued framing of additional information to fit ones prior mistakes.
>Take your anger management issues elsewhere.
Take your idiocy elsewhere. Or, ideally, learn to unplug your head from your ass.

>>15296843
Do you ever get tired of derailing good threads with /pol/shit?

Is there really nothing better to discuss in the biology general than this?
Try to disprove evolution or something, that would be an improvement at least

>>15296850
>Do you ever get tired of derailing good threads with /pol/shit?
Weird take considering I am about half the replies in the thread AND the one telling people to take their /pol/ shit and fuck off. Square that circle for me jim bob.
>>15296898
>Try to disprove evolution or something
lol wut

>>15296971
>Square that circle for me jim bob.
You could just ignore and report
But you actually enjoy this shitflinging don't you

>>15296974
>But you actually enjoy this shitflinging don't you
If that's the only game in town I'll make my own enjoyment out of it.

You COULD ask questions pertaining to biology and you COULD ask the various others in related fields. Very few people so far have done so. Those who have various people have given opinions to. That option is still on the table. Yet, case in point, you'd rather fling more shit. Who is to blame exactly?

>>15296980
>You COULD ask questions pertaining to biology
Ok
What's your take on senescent cell clearing? Game changer for anti-aging? Or something we'll come to regret?

I can smell your autism and grandiosity anon, biology is not known thanks to autists taking big positions and getting cucked by bigger boys (math/phys/biochem) or bullies (eng/lawyers)
Start with the gre- the basic laws of life
>but muh vir-
Infographics about the basic laws of life

>>15296989
I'm inferring you mean cellular replacement strategies given solutions to various entropic problems have not been successful in ways that can be used for such treatments, given cancer risks and whatnot. I am not sure we'd come to regret it if you mean the more recent experiments with blood transfusions. You'll have to be a lot more specific with regard to various aspects of the problem and side-effects of proposed or experimental solutions.

As for regret? Eh. More of a political or philosophical topic where you just pick your poison of future divination. Not that interesting as everyone's got opinions same as their assholes. You could get a lot more specific with individual aspects of the biological problem but the main overall problem will probably remain cancer cell targeting given, at least so far as I know last I checked, most methods greatly increase risk of tumor development. There's a laundry list of caveats and "but wait there's more" but you'd have to be a lot more specific.

>>15296989
That's promising but what about the tissues that have cells that don't divide after a certain point.
A lot of deaths because of the brain and the heart problems for example

>>15297002
I haven't checked in a while myself, familiar with the various notions on the possibility of any benefit to the neurological side of things? One would imagine having younger t-cells and related or possibly lymphatic revitalization would also benefit the brain even on a limited basis.

Ignoring rejection of course.

>>15297006
It's always a balancing game with the immune system. Too much activity results in the autoimmune disorders.
A part of our aging are the evolutionary set clock for a Homo Sapiens Sapiens going over the desired limit into overtime
Another is that it's a better alternative to the things that would happen without aging.
Have to be very careful, it might be down to the specific numbers 9f cells per specific individuals to find an equilibrium.
Hopefully not

>>15297001
I'm talking about eliminating cells that have become senescent ie used to divide but don't anymore. "Supposedly" they sit around spewing out inflammatory factors and all sorts of crap and we'd be better off without them. This kind of thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/06/race-to-kill-killer-zombie-cells-senescent-damaged-ageing-eliminate-research-mice-aubrey-de-grey
On the other hand, such cells appear to be an important factor in wound healing so we might fuck ourselves if we remove them routinely.

>>15296843
I don't think anyone wants to ask you any questions. You're insufferable

>>15296980
>You COULD ask questions pertaining to biology

>>15297023
Oh, so just explicitly removal without replacement i.e. transfusions? I mean I suppose you could focus on that. I've not read much on that in quite some time and I gathered other options, such as wholesale blood transfusion, ended up the better course of action. With relevant caveat relevant there with respect to >>15297019 on autoimmunity, although culturing ones own cells and stem cell growth for safer replacement of younger cells seems to have been where transfusions went.
>On the other hand, such cells appear to be an important factor in wound healing so we might fuck ourselves if we remove them routinely.
That is an important thing to realize about complex biological systems. They tend to run better when we can utilize what's already there, but give it what it needs to perform optimally. I.e. younger cells cultured from the hosts own body preferably. That would not result in such problems if, with said caveats on immune function, one can also revitalize aspects of the lymphatic system.

In a word the buildup of such dysfunction has less to do *merely* with the presence of such cells, but rather the fact it is an associative indicator of declining lymphatic function and other organs such as the liver. While it may be an isolatable risk factor it probably is not as significant or important as the risks of just having a progressively shittier immune system. Have to keep a lot of things in mind with stuff like that.
>>15297041
There's a proportionate ratio with height funnily enough. They've gotten as big as they have probably in conjunction with widening birth canals and larger crania and so on too. Not really a single factor to any of it I'd guess.
>>15297035
>I don't think anyone wants to ask you any questions. You're insufferable
I work to be as insufferable as possible to people most deserving of it. You're welcome (:

>>15297046
Interesting, thanks for the answer.

>>15297053
Sure. Anti-aging research is a fascinating convergence of medicine and biology as a whole, but plagued with every possible problem both medicine and biology face. E.g. cancers on the medical side and other side-effects are possibilities, whereas on the biology side in the more abstract sense problems relating to inevitability of system entropy or attempting to reverse system entropy without going too far. Managing to figure out how to make an already breaking-down system un-break itself beyond what it has evolved to do is unsurprisingly not fuckin simple. Even something seemingly as simple as "Okay telomere length shortening matters let's fix that and oh look excessive telomere elongation is also VERY deleterious well fuck". All the hard problems in biology of mapping NP-hard systems and so forth, where one could get various answers to construct or repair sequences of metabolic processes or pathways, ultimately put limits in more direct progress I think. I could be wrong about that, as I do not actively read about progress in this field.

If I were a betting man I would bet advances in anti-aging will probably have most of their breakthroughs relating to being able to create "new" or newer cells or organs, or bits of organ. End up replacing people piecemeal first if that's even on the table, long before some star-trek like way of doing so becomes feasible. Of course there's nothing new under the sun and "Repo Men" already exists.

>>15297019
Speaking if piecemeal replacement anything interesting on that front with respect to neuronal tissue growth and implantation? Thought I read something on that once as a matter of possibly providing means to recover function from tissue removal surgeries e.g. seizures or tumors or something. You know, adding bodies to the mouse graveyards as it were.

>>15297076
There are areas of the brain that retain plasticity untill death, mainly in the lymbic system relating to the memory processing. It appears they can regenerate just fine.
I wonder if this means that there can actually be a neuronal cancer (as opposed to gliomas) but it's very rare or is there some systems that control it.
Might be a good way to try to find ways to scale up from there as >>15297046
Mentioned we will get best results working with our biology and not trying to put our brain in the state of pharmaceutical intoxication and then surgically remove tissues to fix one thing to have knock down effects from the removal plus the chance of complications from the surgery.
Unfortunately there is a push towards surgical procedures among the neurosurgeons, go figure, and noninvasive treatments are considered to be not sufficient to deal with the problems because there might be some dormant cells that can cause another flare up.

>>15297200
Oh no I was the one asking anyhow (you referred back to my post) rather than the other anon. Seems he left or went to bed. I was simply genuinely curious.

In case it isn't clear I'm not delusional about my interests or capabilities. Someone actively involved in a given field regardless is going to know more than I'm going to recall simply satisfying curiosities, so I wanted your input given you're working in it IIRC and I'm not.

>>15297232
Used to work and not really at a high level.
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
Now I'm not so sure I want go back to neurodegenerative disorders and not switch to something close to it

>>15297237
Hm. Not sure if I can give you input relevant to that as it isn't a field I was ever considering either. Do whatever makes you happy, whether that's money or cell culturing in the basement. Life's a lot shorter than people think.

>>15296898
Work in sales now plus do this in my spare time. Life's good.
Always wanted to do something on the history of biology because they are my favourite subjects so their combination is a dream project for me

>>15297258
Addressed to>>15297244

>>15295096
Oh sorry I forgot about this
I watched about 5 minutes of one of your videos
I thought your voice was easy to understand most of the time, keep on going anon

>>15297489
It's ok, I'm hoping it gets better with time quality wise.
I will keep going even if I have to slow down for some reason from time to time

>>15297237
Ok, that was said in a state of anger. I guess the right thing to do would be to keep up with it as return when I'm ready and join the colleagues in the process of picking the pieces and trying to determine what is still salvageable.
Everybody knew Amyloid theory was full of holes but it was the best we had and all the reputable sources used it so we just went along I guess.
Remember the head of my lab laughing when I asked what stops people from fudging the statistics in some small ways to get "better" results.
She said it would be too obvious.

>>15294051
What an ignoramus. Shut the hell up you buffoon. You don't know anything about anything.

>>15297900
Lowest tier bait yet.
>>15297878
Yeah it happens

>>15297918
Bait? The only I see is this junk post: >>15294051

>>15297936
>>15294051
So let's unpack the retardation on display:

>- Subspecies is not a valid taxon.
Categorization per se has nothing to do with biology, but epistemology and metaphysics. What is an isn't a "valid" taxonomy ultimately depends on the epistemological and metaphysical assumptions being made. To a nominalist, no taxonomy is ever "valid", period -- because to a nominalist every object is sui generis.

As to taxonomy as used in biological research, it is mainly a matter of convention among the various researchers who undertake this, and what guides the classification systems they use is most often simple convenience not rigour. Nor should it necessarily be otherwise, as often it is better (in a pedagogical and communicative sense) to just get the gist of it across in the most expedient manner. There's no reason why an myrmecologist should spend too much time rigorously defining what it is that an "ant" truly and most accurately is. 99% of the time you know an ant when you see one.

>- FST does not validate your racism.
What does this word salad even mean??? What the hell do fixation indices even have to do with discrimination you moron? Do assholes carry genetic testing kits with them when they treat someone else like shit? This is a pure shibboleth. No one should be this stupid.

>- heritability does not mean inherited.
And sphericity does not mean sphere. You couldn't talk about sphericity if there were no such things as spheres, however. The heritability of a trait would make no sense as a measure if no genetic information were passed on (i.e. inherited) from the parents to the offspring. To merely state that the "heritability' of a trait/phenotype as a concept is not the same thing as its being inherited is neither here nor there.

It's only another demonstration of being a clueless buffoon. And, if intentional even when knowing better, just another shibboleth.

I could go on, but it's clear you're fighting the windmills in your head.

>>15297976
Meh, repeating bait already BTFO'd earlier. You dipshits aren't even creative about it.

>>15297976
>To merely state that the "heritability' of a trait/phenotype as a concept is not the same thing as its being inherited is neither here nor there.
Even if it is true, which it undoubtedly is. Just as true as the fact that sphericity and sphere are in fact different concepts.

Basically, your whole post is empty posturing. No idea who you're trying to flex for, but you're a moron and a know-nothing.

>>15297980
Take your meds, schizo.

>>15297976
Unfortunately it appears that the person that you're trying to ridicule had a lot of bad experiences with the Sophists that use those concepts to prove their inflammatory beliefs while ignoring everything wrong with their reasoning.
I've only ever seen a glimpse of it, but I imagine that's what going on.

I hope your own rage is just exaggerated exasperation because I can understand being triggered by the attitude of a person, but in scientific environment you get to meet a lot of "characters" so you learn to give some leeway with that, at least in my experience.

I don't mean just make up or something, just try to go from basic Principles and see if you have more in common than you thought.

>>15298909
Let's discuss something else in the meantime.

How about giant and colossal squids?
What do we know about them? What else can we find out and how invested should we be? Are they an endangered species or just hard to spot?
What about cephalopod fossils? How much do we know of the extinct species?
Are there any DNA sequencing projects involving cephalopods?

I'm sure there's someone who studied the subject more extensively than I did.
Some links:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_size
https://eartharchives.org/articles/500-million-years-of-cephalopod-fossils/index.html
https://fineartamerica.com/art/drawings/giant+squid

>>15298909
>I've only ever seen a glimpse of it, but I imagine that's what going on.
Which is why wasting time talking to dishonest/severely autistic people who won't/can't understand the perspective behind such a rebuke isn't worth talking to. His rage was hysterical and infantile.
>I don't mean just make up or something, just try to go from basic Principles and see if you have more in common than you thought.
You've some indication of my views on theory of mind. I've nothing in common with people finding it funny or clever to not engage in it. Remember, I think we'd be infinitely better off if such people did not breed.

>>15298909
In case it is not obvious by "such a rebuke" >>15299091 I meant the one I gave to poltards up there >>15294051 . Just coming to sit down. Wrote that too hastily.

I'm half convinced it's the return of sourpuss "life's hard" emo boy from before >>15294345 trying to "own" me by constructing a false equivalence. It'd make sense. He flatly did not seem to comprehend the difference between "explaining why ideas are dumb" and ideological allegiances, nearly acted affronted as if I'm "picking the wrong side" by explaining why certain ideas of how biology works are dumb. Hence completely strawmanning the whole point of what was originally written to make it seem stupid, and primarily from the angle of claiming my remark on the chronic misuse of FST index as "a shibboleth". Just trying to invite me to respond with something he can misconstrue and strawman as a "gotcha".

Hard to say. Their perspectives do seem reaaaaaaaaal fuckin similar. I can easily imagine emo boy thinking he's being clever because he didn't get my point even a little. Either way, complete waste of time to talk to such an NPC.

+NOSE WRIGGLER+

I just wanna talk about squids man...

>>15299310
Hey giant squids are cool

>>15299313
Yeah, they are
I wonder how closely related they are to the other species of squids

>>15299114
You come across as an enormous pseud.

>>15299320
We need ourselves a resident Teuthologist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuthology

Can't really speak of any knowledge as to order or cladistics related to cephalopods. Dont know shit about it but I do think it'd be hilarious if a Teuthologist did visit this board. The sheer improbability of that.

>>15299328
I guess you could just email one and ask.
I'm sure someone would be glad to write a short introduction to the current state of their specialty
Usually professor's that are into some niche subject for 40 years are glad to share

>>15299328
What are your specialty, if that's ok to ask?
Actually everybody is invited to say what their specialty and/or subject they are knowledgeable about in biology. I'm sure a lot of people would like to compare notes across the isles
It is a wide field and sometimes you wonder about something biological out of your field that's common knowledge to other people.

A lot of weird talks about the tree of life around.
I invite you to put your theory here because I feel there's some major misunderstanding going on

>>15299916

>>15299916
Seems he never did. I am curious in a morbid way, though. What was going on? Since you think it relates to biology somehow?
>>15299360
None. Did not complete going through for biology. Just still interested in biology and know enough to answer certain types of questions. I know a lot more about genetics and mathematical related modeling in biology than I would chemistry, for example.

>>15294051
SSS tier bait. Well done.

I remember an extinct animal in a book I read as a kid
It had a body shaped like a pill, an anus/mouth and some form of legs
Was this just made up or was it real?

>>15301225
It was aquatic btw

Peaceful coexistence is not allowed.

>>15294038
>biology thread
>200 answers
am i dreaming
what do you even discuss here, vaxx and genetical engineering that shuts off the link between body and soul?

>>15301239
You can read and find out.
If I were to summarize
About 100 posts were derailing
About 100 were on topic
There's at least 5 people who know a thing or two about biology from what I can gather

>>15301225
A lot of animals fall under this description
Was it swimming of walking on the seafloor?

>>15300991
Well, that's good too. Diploma is not everything as is evidenced by a lot of people without it that are quite knowledgeable and a lot of people with them whose knowledge is outdated since 2014

>>15301698
Why 2014? Is that an auspicious date for your field?

>>15301698
While it is true there can be individuals who are inept, your average person is far better off most of the time adhering to consensus views on topics they don't care enough about. Rather than cherrypicked literature, or the fucking media, or the one bonkers (and probably incredibly inept) PhD. Compared to someone with a completed bachelors or masters in biology, however, my specialization knowledge would be rather limited as I switched fields, and this was a very long time ago. But virtually nobody on here is asking about methods for nucleic acid sequencing or differences of assays or PCR assays, etc. For such things I'd definitely not have any worthwhile practical information to give as early-mid labs are hilariously uninformative in my experience.

It's really just important to understand your place in things. Any specialist on a topic I refer to would have much more detailed and practical experimental knowledge than I do, of course. On the other hand, most people including on /sci/ seems to lack even the basic information, so I'm hardly stepping on toes either.

>>15301698
I didn't intend it to be, no.
Mostly the date when I began to familiarise myself with the subject
But there were some interesting things that happened during that year, yes.
https://www.science.org/content/article/breakthrough-year-top-10-scientific-achievements-2014

>>15301798
I wonder how much of that research is useless now because the work on beta amyloid plaques turned out to be a decade-long fraud.

>>15301799
Like most things on /sci/ or places with a lot of anti-science rhetoric people have greatly oversold the level of impact that paper being fraudulent has actually had. There is quite a lot of research on many levels of neural declines in Alzheimer's, and much of the research regarding Amyloid is still true. The main thing is that the amyloid hypothesis, which is something very specific, and that on a causal level does not seem to have been true. That means things like drugs targeting that exclusively would not have the purported effects.

I've seen it both ways. People grossly overselling the nature of a given area of research and people grossly overexaggerating problems in research.

>>15301787
Not disagreeing, but there is a lot of inertia among the people you describe.
They usually stay on the level that was contemporary when they got their degrees in most subjects except their specialty. In their specialty they may be trapped by the worldview of the head of the lab. Even if they know there are some problems with it, it gets grants and funding, so they bide their time and wait their turn.
There are other situations too.

The result is that you can easily get a person who should be at least humble and knowledgeable enough to say
"I'm not sure my understanding is on the current level, let me check things out and get back to you when I get a better idea"
They just say what comes to mind first without consideration.
For them it's ok because if someone corrects them in academic setting they just absorb the info and go on. Not being married to your ideas is one of the main pillars of science.

But the "laypeople", who can be experts in tlother field and this vield authority just take this lazy take and go with it, sometimes very far.

That's the way I view this problem at least.
What do you think?

>>15301799
I skimmed over an example article that explains what I mean better, this seems to give a good overview for people who don't care to read 500 different papers concerning amyloid bet and the amyloid hypothesis or whatnot https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid-data-what-does-it-mean

So, specifically, the issue is with respect to the cascade hypothesis and assertion of causal effect. Plaque accumulation is nonetheless a problem even if that paper was fraud. People grossly oversell it and probably no thanks to the media. Which is absurd because as far as fraud goes it's quite a bad one, yet people still managed to make it somehow a lot worse by exaggeration.

I swear, if a nuke went off the media would engage in one-up games trying to sell you 100 nukes going off. Fucking stupid.

>>15301803
Exactly
I'm not saying that everything is in vein, just that a lot of time and money (and let's be honest, lives of patients and profits of corporations) were allocated... Let's say inefficiently to be safe from exaggeration.
And the reputation of the institutions took a big hit of course
All done by 1 or 2 people 17 years ago. And it would've been 25 if not more if that researcher didn't get a chance to uncover it.
Thusly,
The questions are:
What do we do now about all the Alzheimer's research we have?
What else is fraudulent, how much research should we check now?
How do we regain the trust in the institutions and should we try at all?
And so on and so on

>>15301803
It's a systemic issue with the other papers those authors have made as well, and potentially wider than that since one of the co-authors complicit in it is now a grant writer for NIH. Only one paper has been conclusively proven to be fraudulent, but all the rest of their research is suspect and being investigated now.

>>15301812
I'm more concerned with that it was able to happen and for so long and that I was part of it and even though everybody knew that amyloid cascade wasn't working and all success stories were barely valid on the statistical side.
I really don't want to invite the shitstorm that is raging all around/sci/, but that is a wake-up call just like some other in the last 3-4 years.
We just don't like the fact that nice people that taught us how to do what we love were deceived or allowed themselves to be deceived because "the research is valid regardless of the theoretical explanation"
I guess we need to do a huge array of meta analysis studies and look for some pattern without the cascade lense to confuse us.
But I'm afraid it's unlikely we will find anything without another theoretical lense.

>>15301811
Academic consensus on various subjects is rather different than "some researcher said a thing by rote from 30 years ago". In fact that is one of the reasons I specified consensus, rather than individual scientist. If I understand what you're asking.
>>15301816
>What do we do now about all the Alzheimer's research we have?
It's still good for what it is. The funny thing is that in terms of hypotheses on etiology, different fields end up chasing causations that may never add up at all. Such as if a given health outcome is overwhelmingly predicted by lifestyle habits, chasing a biological cure or treatment when it involves systemic cascades would prove fruitless. Could be be one of those cases. Another example would be obesity, where the biological research with respect to obesity can get WAY too far up its own ass by positing utterly ridiculous causation claims. Meanwhile the real causes in terms of effect size and contributing factors, in most people, are social/psychological.
>What else is fraudulent, how much research should we check now?
I think this would be overselling the issue. Most of the time research, including causation hypotheses, tend to be reproduced on some level. You get some cases like this where people end up unfairly positioned by status that causes shit to go haywire though. e.g. the Schön scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

So concerns about widespread fraud are probably misplaced if not greatly exaggerated. Since, again, most research is replicated in some form or other fairly regularly. What you should be suspicious of are those which are not, like the cascade hypothesis paper.
>How do we regain the trust in the institutions and should we try at all?
Given there's a veritable cottage industry of meta-science papers in just about every single field as it is, given the "replication crisis" claims began quite a while ago now, such concerns are often more the product of anti-science propaganda than reality.

>>15301829
>Given there's a veritable cottage industry of meta-science papers in just about every single field as it is, given the "replication crisis" claims began quite a while ago now, such concerns are often more the product of anti-science propaganda than reality.
Given that the concerns regarding the replication crisis have only mounted as more and more hard-science disciplines have had fraud uncovered, is it wise to discard it as "anti-science propaganda" when that allows people to deceive people (including yourself) with results that are sometimes very badly faked? e.g. superconductivity research which has been inundated with fraud in the last few years.

>>15301824
>I'm more concerned with that it was able to happen and for so long and that I was part of it and even though everybody knew that amyloid cascade wasn't working and all success stories were barely valid on the statistical side.
It is incredibly difficult to prove fraud versus incompetence. There's no way to fix that without outright violating somebody with a perfect truth detection brain scanner. As methods to detect fraud improve inevitably so too will methods to commit fraud.

It's about as silly to me to declare science a bankrupt enterprise or engage in such conspiratorial thinking at either end. The more data is publicly accessible in any event the better, as that's what is catching fraud quite a lot. It is a lot harder to commit fraud if everyone and their mother can check your work.

>>15301832
>It is incredibly difficult to prove fraud versus incompetence.
If the results are self-evidently faked or copied, then there's really no way around that. You could expel those people from the academy forever.

>>15301831
>Given that the concerns regarding the replication crisis have only mounted as more and more hard-science disciplines have had fraud uncovered, is it wise to discard it as "anti-science propaganda" when that allows people to deceive people (including yourself) with results that are sometimes very badly faked? e.g. superconductivity research which has been inundated with fraud in the last few years.
You may want to look over a general review of these "meta-science replications" between fields. I do not know why you have this opinion given a lot of these initial findings were from 2010, and concerning much older research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Open science and portals have been growing quite a lot, especially in the past five years. Plus keep in mind a lot of it is also low hanging fruit, or a kind of puffery on behalf of persons who are conducting or labeling their research as "meta-science". E.g. picking papers with self stated small effect sizes and wide standard error. Of course that would not reliably replicate, and of course nobody competent would've put much credence in them.

It is about as hit or miss with replications as it is with regular research. You can't make broad sweeping generalizations or such statements without first having some rose-tinted notion of the world before. As if only now is it somehow an issue.

>>15301835
It's rarely so simple, if it ever is so simple. As the example of that Schon case demonstrates. Hell, even if you just survey people with a question as Nature did with respect to failing to reproduce something, that doesn't tell you much of anything. Why did they fail to reproduce? Were experiments underpowered in the first place? There's just no real detail there to get meaning out of the question.

Fact is I was once interested in such research but more and more I mostly see such papers leaning on statistically underpowered papers and effectively bullying people for having dared to publish anyway. That is not really making anything better.

>>15301839
The example I used, though not from my field, is a pretty telling one. Superconductivity research is some of the hardest hard science you can get (experimental physics) and yet one of its most active figures is an Indian scientist who openly publishes fraud in major journals without punishment. Notably in Nature, which not surprisingly is one of the ones being attacked in a thread on /sci/ right now for taking anti-science stances.

Despite very clearly manipulated results and multiple failed replications he retains his professorship and his grants in the face of paper retractions. Can you still feel confident in academia watching a saga like that unfold? People are rewarded for publishing appealing grandiosity instead of genuine results.

>>15301843
People have been caught faking western blots with a felt tipped marker or MS Paint. If you stripped them of their degrees we wouldn't be losing anything of value.

>>15301846
While I do occasionally read papers on physics it isn't anything like superconductivity. I am unfamiliar with your example. Does it have some scandal name or some reference point so I know what you mean?
>>15301848
I'm not defending such people and if that is fraud I'm hardly disagreeing with ousting someone for it.

>>15301850
>While I do occasionally read papers on physics it isn't anything like superconductivity. I am unfamiliar with your example. Does it have some scandal name or some reference point so I know what you mean?
Ranga Dias. There was a thread up about him earlier this week since he had a presentation about another claimed superconductivity breakthrough that turned out to be highly overblown by his ego.

>>15301812
I've read the article.
Yeah, that's a good summation of everything as I see it.
The problem might have been not so bad if it was something else, but AD.
But it is AD.
And AD is a huge black mark on neuroscience as it is without this situation.
For all the research and finding and a lot kool aid drinking we basically made zero progress in treating it since we found it existed and continue to do so.
We found a version of it that is genetic but the purpose of APP is unclear to this day...

It's just doom and gloom all around while estimations of the damages that AD does to the world are in the billions
"Over 6 million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer's disease, which costs the U.S. economy an estimates $321 billion in 2022, in addition to an estimated $271 billion in unpaid caregiving."

>>15301850
>I'm not defending such people and if that is fraud I'm hardly disagreeing with ousting someone for it.
That is quite literally the alzheimer's research crisis. They were caught because they faked Western blots.

>>15301854
I'll give it a look some time. Notwithstanding I believe my general remarks on research I am familiar with are still quite relevant in most cases.
>>15301860
As noted AD may be in that category of "more generalized cascades from behavioral causes" and seeking a biological explanation would never be fruitful. >>15301829 Granted, I am not saying that IS the case, nor implying I've good cause or evidence to do so. Just that such things do seem to happen where certain fields are completely blind to the fact they're hunting a jabberwocky in terms of etiology. I believe the common phrase in such a case is "multifactorial highly heterogenous" right? :P

>>15301865
>That is quite literally the alzheimer's research crisis. They were caught because they faked Western blots.
Yes, but I am saying in general. I was trying to point out I'm not defending such cases, but I was clearly trying to point out identifying fraud as different from incompetence ISN'T always so simple. Pretty sure I said that explicitly.

>>15301832
Reminds me of the "Stupidity or Treason?" speach in the Russian duma during WW1
Even though it was full of fabricated accusations, the point stands
We can just add this question

If the main reason is not fraud but incompetence, how do we fix that?

>>15301876
>If the main reason is not fraud but incompetence, how do we fix that?
Force everyone to take more classes in probabability and statistics? Fuck if I know it's probably largely field dependent. I know some papers have claimed that's a huge issue in early psychology research as most researchers were rather innumerate, but I don't believe that is as-much of an issue lately. Especially thanks to statistical software packages that make it more idiot-proof.

But, well, who knows. Idiot proofing fixes one generations problems and the next generation invents a brand new class of idiots. The treadmill will just keep going and we'll have incrementalism like always.

>>15301876
I would normally advocate for some sort of independent body to commit funding to replication experiments and punish people found to have committed blatant fraud, but in our sick society it would undoubtedly be used to punish people for publishing research that goes against whoever has political power. Maybe our only chance is to have completely open access journals and to eliminate peer review so that all research is viewed and judged by the wider scientific community instead of fed through a nepotism machine.

>>15301887
Rather hard to make blanket statements as you can't account for things like failures in replication being due to the difficulty or miniscule nature of the effect size. I can't emphasize enough just how inapplicable any "one size fits all" proposal is to so many scientific fields. I see no reason why what we've got brewing now, open publications and journals who try to gatekeep for more serious and rigorous research, is somehow a bad thing. It is already infinitely better than before where the idea of "open science" was someone running a blog posting pictures of an aquarium.

That is another thing very few people pushing a more anti-science agenda ignore. The fact that some degree of replication "successes" may be entirely attributable to field conservatism. I've seen a few authors write on that subject and it's a fair point. Dogmatic approaches with claims of single causes with ultimate solutions do not fit in reality most of the time, least of all fit all or most of the sciences.

>>15301900
>>15301887
I realized the instant I hit submit nobody will understand what I meant by "conservatism". I mean that in terms of how willing the researchers are to take risks on new ideas versus publishing along the lines of already well-worn ones. Not the political ideology.

>>15301866
I believe most of the neurological "diseases" and psychiatric "disorders" are suffering from the malaise of their historic discovery from the age before our modern paradigm was established around 1980s.
We need to break them up however painful it might be in the short term to get some results.
The problem starts with wrong diagnosis because there is no correct diagnosis in our medical codex. That's speculation, but I wonder if that's the reason no animals have the same diseases as we do in this area.
>>15301884
>>15301887
Yeah, opensource seems to be the only obvious way forward.
As such we need to focus on making PCR, Western blot and other routine lab methods available to all for affordable prices and standardise the way results of the research are presented so it would be easier to verify them.
My main issue with this is like this

It sounds like a fight between the conservative old guard and the radical upstarts is brewing
A full fledged revolution and a plunge into darkness for a few years.
And that's if we are allowed to duke it out on our own and the government agencies and those that profit from student loans and big pharma don't join the fight.


I would love it if that's just one way outcompeting the other and forward looking investors jumping on the bandwagon, but I can easily see riots too.

>>15301914
The US govt has mandated open access for all government-funded labs by 2026 so it might just be forced on people.

>>15301901
That's just grant money. Everybody understands that labs often get some "names" to join them because they attract money with their pet theories.

>>15301919
>open access for all government-funded labs by 2026
That's interesting, never heard of it.
Well, I guess it could invigorate science in the US and other countries that addopt the system.

>>15301927
Or everybody escapes into the sweet embrace of the private labs that get US finding through some backdoor so don't need to share
Thus making everything even more secretive and bringing cyberpunk dystopia a bit closer to reality

Only time can tell

>>15301914
>The problem starts with wrong diagnosis because there is no correct diagnosis in our medical codex. That's speculation, but I wonder if that's the reason no animals have the same diseases as we do in this area.
That is a common vein of speculation. This is where I think more of my learning with respect to biology comes in, and some other important details. For one, you have to remember selective pressures. Many things you will not necessarily see in animals as severe or as noticeable in humans, as the phenotype is eradicated if it were to present itself. The same goes for the fact animals have an incredibly high mortality rate compared to humans, so any medical problems animals have as infants or fetally results in death. This is not the case with us.

Most such cases have resolved themselves and largely due to consensus, through crosscultural research. You do not in fact tend to see huge heterogeneity between cultures that have similar medical standards for most psychiatric conditions. As concerns the ontology of such disorders I've seen this guy brought up a few times, and it seems pretty reasonable https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ontology-of-psychiatric-conditions
>I believe most of the neurological "diseases" and psychiatric "disorders" are suffering from the malaise of their historic discovery from the age before our modern paradigm was established around 1980s.
Given what I just wrote, that is why I am surprised you have this attitude. I've no idea what to make of such a statement given how much diagnostic criteria and evidentiary standards have improved. Especially from the standpoint of neurology and the corresponding neurological etiology or presentations of neurodevelopmental disorders. Surely, you can't mean "force people to do behaviors I think are good" like most people do, as if that somehow magically reverses brain damage? I genuinely do not know what to make of your statements on this.

>>15301924
I'm sorry? I do not think you are fairly considering anything I've mentioned let alone the work of people who've written on the various interpretations of alleged crises or real ones. Institutional prestige has nothing to do with what I mentioned regarding differences in risks or willingness to publish statistically underpowered papers. This applies as much to supposed "hard sciences" like neurology, which due to sheer cost is often necessarily underpowered. I don't think you're being fair minded about it even a little. Flippant, even.

>>15297976
>Categorization per se has nothing to do with biology, but epistemology and metaphysics. What is an isn't a "valid" taxonomy ultimately depends on the epistemological and metaphysical assumptions being made.

Yes, you could imagine someone forcefully introducing a single taxonomic system that would exclude "subraces", we now have more systematic rigor, but our entire agricultural system collapses, because nobody can improve the existing stock of plant and animal species, because all plums are plums.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/cassava-closes-door-controversy/
Let's not forget what loomes in the background of all this AD situation

>>15301948
It would become just as it is now for races, with an unofficial system existing that the practical-minded people employ even though they're reviled as "anti-science" for trusting empirical measurements and observational results over proclamations from the priest.

>>15301936
I think you misunderstood me on the malaise thing
What I'm saying is that there are at least 2 separate diseases in AD, for example. We call them genetic (or early onset) and sporadic forms, but there really no established common nature between them, just some of the symptoms and the results of postmortem examinations are the same
I'm talking about reviewing our classification to separate them because they are unlikely to be treatable the same way if there any treatment at all.

>>15301957
>It would become just as it is now for races, with an unofficial system existing that the practical-minded people employ even though they're reviled as "anti-science" for trusting empirical measurements and observational results over proclamations from the priest.
Far less some issue of that and far more an issue of ascribing inherent qualities on mere pragmatic categories. That's the unscientific part.
>>15301967
I thought that was already a common thing for AD? Given I can pull up dozens of papers as it is and with little effort on factors like exercise, smoking, obesity, poor diet, and so on. I'm by no means particularly invested in the topic of AD so I can't really say. Superficially it seems to be the case that there's a broad awareness of that fact. That is to say, of being a phenotype highly associated with overall metabolic and health decline.

>>15301944
I might be a bit pessimistic and bitter, yes.
But you must understand that I'm from the postsoviet environment.
I don't think my point of view is entirely untrue, at least historically, and I would advise to not ignore history because it is different now. Even if it is, historic record shows an innate tendency towards such situation and will happen again.
It's not a question of "if", but when.
Reputation is everything to scientists and they are people.
Observe how Selkoe will act in the next couple of years to see what I mean. I hope he can move past it just fine because I respect his work, but that might not be the case judging by what I estimate in my current cranky mood.

>>15301974
Yes, but what If the form of Alzheimer's that's correlated with obesity is different from the form correlated with head trauma, for example?
And why are such questions so nebulous after 30 years of research?

>>15301985
There are several different genetic forms of AD by the way, and I don't recall them being separated
Is it really a good idea to have one disease with 2 forms when all research into both produces conflicting results?
Perhaps it would be best to subdivide them further or maybe even join some forms of other neurodegenerative disorders related to AD (like Down syndrome) together to see a clearer picture?
I'm not pushing this idea, it sits at the very edge of my expertise so I'm ready to drop it the instant it gets proven wrong.

>>15301985
Probably due to convergence of etiology. Head trauma also causing high probability of obesity for example, perhaps as pertains to impulse control issues. So, multifactorial and highly heterogenous. As the behaviors of self-care one would ordinarily take and precautions would end up less likely, such as taking even more risks instead of stopping risky behavior. That doesn't seem to me to disqualify AD as a diagnosis or set of criteria per se, inasmuch as indicates the etiology being more in line with that system failure cascade, right? We can't seriously just expect everything has clean cut causes even for the most clean cut presentations.

>>15301999
It seems we agree but are moving towards the same place from different angles
Yes, I don't propose we discredit AD, I propose we accept it's multifactorial nature

>>15302009
Right well that's where I'm confused I suppose. Isn't that already the case?

>>15302015
Maybe in the field of general research, but not in the field of pharmaceutical research where I worked.
We just try to hit it with some general things (like autophagy in my case) and hope for the best)
My issue is with this kind of thing >>15301953
Along with those trials of amyloid hypothesis that Selkoe is concerned about, if this thing reaches market and turns out to be useless (or more likely effective in slowing down the disease to 75% of original speed on a specific subpopulation of patients with AD that have a specific subform that we haven't distinguished yet) it will be deemed a failure and we will have to deal with the fallout.
That might be fear mongering, but please understand my wariness right after this incident

>>15302039
Forgot to mention that we measured the success by the reduction of A-beta and a marker for inflammation.
The reduction of A-beta doesn't seem to help att all with the development of AD

>>15302039
Oh. That makes a whole lot more sense. I understand now.
>>15302044
Well yeah that's probably the only hope in hell they had of a reliable medical treatment. Barring ADHD you can't just give someone a pill to make them not get head trauma or stop them thinking morbid obesity is A-OK. Yeah had you mentioned you were in pharmaceutical on that topic, or had I remembered, I'd have understood what you meant immediately.

I think that's just how pharmaceutical research goes isn't it? Naturally makes sense they'd not care about its other correlates given generalized behavioral correlates are hardly something they're likely to find a drug to fix. No magic pill for "reverse generalized degradation".

>>15302072
Yeah, that's the way research goes usually. I don't blame anyone for choosing to do it that way and I learned a lot in the process.
It's just that it's really ineffective when applied to AD.
Everything that is general practice kind of doesn't work for AD
Which is why I'm skeptical of the drug for stage 3 AD even if it didn't have any controversy around it

>>15302088
I think it'll go, if it does, like most disorders that present themselves as your body progressively fails to maintain homeostasis. Such treatments may be found as they are for other conditions, but like treatment for heart disease and others it'll probably be for the remainder of one's life. Not unless we find ways to magically turn back the clock, which is what anti-aging research is all in favor of pursuing. Though we already discussed that and it seems rather unlikely to "un-cascade" the cascade.

Either way, pharma gonna pharma. Even if it only gave another 1-2 years people would probably take it. Irony is they won't exercise to save their lives. Literally in most cases.

>>15302095
Yeah
I guess only something truly sci fi can permanently fix it
Like growing a spare brains under the influence of the brain patterns of the original and them ship of Theseus them untill everything is new and fresh or the same with cyber implants

>>15302116
I think you'd be surprised how many people would consider that death anyway. I think there's a video game about that. Soma or something. It's like people arguing about whether a transporter from star trek kills you or not. People's intuitions on what makes them who they are unsurprisingly mirror evolved contexts rather than what we know about reality. We basically always die, every single moment, we just end up defining who we are by perceived continuities instead. It's that "perceived continuity" that'll probably make most people refuse, since that seems to be the very same basis on which most people think they're alive.

Not sure if the buddhists actually got that one right or I merely think they did. Not about to go reading all that poetry and crap to find out. Even so, if they did get it right, that's funny as hell to me. By most people's notions of "being alive", continuity, in reality they die every moment of their life. They definitely die going to sleep. Even so, most people definitely wouldn't agree to replacement like that. "But that'll kill me!"

>>15302144
People are free to live how they want.
I don't think I really want to live for hundreds of years if it's going to be the same.
I certainly can't be the way I am now, would have to part with parts of human experience that are caused by the fact that we get 100 years
At that point just upload yourself and be done with it

>>15302246
To expand a little
I think we underestimate the effect of aging in psychological sence because it gets overshadowed by the physiological effects.
The rust of mental illness from all of the stress and mental exhaustion will accumulate even in the technically young and fresh body.
If you are willing to erase memories to avoid that, just have children and teach them as much as you can because that essentially fulfills that role
>>15302144
Nice talking to you btw, that was interesting

>>15299091
>>15299114
Once again, shut the hell up you fucking clown. I don't say this because I'm a "/pol/tard" (i.e. a cross between a conspiracy theorist and a racist troll), but because you're anfucking ignoramus. Your posts are fucking stupid and betray a gross misunderstanding of pretty much everything you're talking about. "Herp derp"-in-oh-so-many-words isn't a rebuke of anything, and pointing out the sheer inanity of it does not make me "autistic".

> I think we'd be infinitely better off if such people did not breed
Ironic, given that dim-witted dilettantes like you should definitely be in that category. I have to deal with overconfident morons like you far to often. It's grinding my gears. I just wish you lot would fucking disappear.

/2 cents, I'm out

>>15302490

>>15298909
>Unfortunately it appears that the person that you're trying to ridicule had a lot of bad experiences with the Sophists that use those concepts to prove their inflammatory beliefs while ignoring everything wrong with their reasoning.
His type is far, FAR more common than /pol/tards (who are often simple trolls, when they're not simpletons), especially IRL. He's an unthinking parrot. I'm sick to death of it. He should put in the work not skim-read textbooks than pose as some expert. In fact his type is one of the key generator of non-troll (honest-believer's) /pol/tardation. The fucking bastard spawn is just making my vocation harder and I hate him with every ounce of my being.

>look at these "experts", they're idiots! why should I believe them?

>>15294038
>There is good evidence that existing genetic variants in the human population (i.e., alleles affecting intelligence that are found today in the collective world population, but not necessarily in a single person) can be combined to produce a phenotype which is far beyond anything yet seen in human history. This would not surprise an animal or plant breeder -- experiments on corn, cows, chickens, drosophila, etc. have shifted population means by many standard deviations relative to the original wild type. Take the case of John von Neumann, widely regarded as one of the greatest intellects in the 20th century, and a famous polymath. He made fundamental contributions in mathematics, physics, nuclear weapons research, computer architecture, game theory and automata theory. In addition to his abstract reasoning ability, von Neumann had formidable powers of mental calculation and a photographic memory. Genotypes exist that correspond to phenotypes as far beyond von Neumann as he was beyond a normal human. The quantitative argument for why there are many SD’s to be had from tuning genotypes is straightforward. Suppose variation in cognitive ability is 1. highly polygenic (i.e., controlled by N loci, where N is large, such as 10k), and 2. approximately linear (note the additive heritability of g is larger than the non-additive part).
>Then the population SD for the trait corresponds to an excess of roughly N^(1/2)vpositivevalleles (for simplicity we suppress dependence on minor allele frequency). A genius like von Neumann might be +6 SD, so would have roughly 6N^(1/2) more positive alleles than the average person (e.g.,∼600 extra positive alleles if N = 10k). But there are roughly +N^(1/2) SDs in phenotype (∼100 SDs in the case N ∼ 10k) to be had by an individual who has essentially all of the N positive alleles! As long as N^(1/2) >> 6, there is ample extant variation for selection to act on to produce a type superior to any that has existed before.

>>15302542
>The probability of producing a maximal type through random breeding is exponentially small in N, and the historical human population is insufficient to have made this likely.
>The content of this basic calculation underlies the work of animal and plant breeders. As leading population geneticist James Crow of Wisconsin wrote : "The most extensive selection experiment, at least the one that has continued for the longest time, is the selection for oil and protein content in maize (Dudley 2007). These experiments began near the end of the nineteenth century and still continue; there are now more than 100 generations of selection. Remarkably, selection for high oil content and similarly, but less strikingly, selection for high protein, continue to make progress. There seems to be no diminishing of selectable variance in the population. The effect of selection is enormous: the difference in oil content between the high and low selected strains is some 32 times the original standard deviation.
>Accurate prediction of height from genome has already been accomplished, identifying 10k positively associated loci (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/18/190124.full.pdf).). The genetic architecture of intelligence is similar to that of height (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf).). It is only a matter of time before enough genotype-phenotype pairs are collected to perform a similar analysis on cognitive ability, and identify the estimated 10k SNPs that explain the variance in IQ. After these are identified, an optimized genotype could be discovered and implemented in human embryos via genetic engineering, although the technology here will also have to advance to be able to edit 10k loci reliably.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf (On the genetic architecture of intelligence and other quantitative traits)

>>15302502
I always like people talking out their ass about me not having a clue who they're talking to. Your interpretation of my statements and what they're intended to convey are about as far apart as it's possible to get. Mostly, from the looks of it, by reading words and intentions not actually present. Incidentally, I happen to hate the people you refer to as well. I just happen to not be one of them. I also agree such people tend to be what furthers extremists by being extremists themselves.
>>15302542
>>15302546
And I don't disagree with this. Was I supposed to or something?

>>15302542
>>15302546
Wouldn't a person like this be lonely? A genetic genius that from a young age is told he is a genius and is closely monitored.
He might have parents but they are either crazy scientists that experimented on their own child or mostly not present in the life of a child.
His whole life is in a bubble.
What's more he is encouraged to contribute to the field that produced him.
Sounds like a terrible existence.
(The pic is from ep 18 of Nadesico dealing with a similar theme. I would also recommend flowers for Algernon and the Dog's heart as good "sci fi" books on this subject)

>

>>15302630
NTA. Well, we're rather far away from any potential Gattaca situation so described. The issues I've variously brought up here and elsewhere continue to persist. Rather amusingly, also issues brought up in a paper where that very same author is listed among several.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348563265_From_Genotype_to_Phenotype_polygenic_prediction_of_complex_human_traits
As noted due to the correlational nature of these predictor models they don't actually work outside the ancestry we've the most data for. That is, Europeans. That's to be expected from what I've already noted about the correlational nature of genomic research, and my repeated caution to people not to take it as some fatalistic causal certainty of phenotypes or "phenotypic potential" in populations.

I think the key part that person is flipping shit about is not understanding why "in populations" is the key phrase. But you know how it goes. Try to summarize, people get upset. Try to expand, people whine you write too much. There's never any winning on the internet.

But hey, plenty of authors like Mr. Hsu will keep chasing that causal rabbit. Maybe one day we will get to Gattaca.

>>15302662
>>15302630
Oh and because people go out of their way to misunderstand everything, that causation-from-correlation problem also includes causal effect on individual biology. As the paper notes too.

>>15302630
Rewatched the episode
The scene in the institute is so chilling, no wonder I remembered it

>>15302662
Interesting read.
I'll honestly say that I skimmed through the technical details of AI they used but it seems to be working as intended.
Probably the first time I've seen anything written in the conflict of interests that shows that there is one, not sure what to think about it.
As usual, more research from the independent parties is nessesary, especially in other groups than Europeans

>>15302753
>Probably the first time I've seen anything written in the conflict of interests that shows that there is one, not sure what to think about it.
I don't know what you mean in the context of that paper by "conflict of interests". Explain?

>>15302630
>Wouldn't a person like this be lonely?
That depends on the enviroment he grows up. A loving, caring and honest parenthood that treats the child as its own responsible person-to-be will ensure that one grows up independent and healthy. The probability of a crass difference of intelligence at a initial phase of gene editing is low, we could technically make change to single variants with multigenic trait like the infamous deletion of CCR5 to improve learning capability or overexpress NR2B to improve memory yet the modification is superficial and might only improve cognition slightly. Still, there are several dozen genes that could be edited today to improve health expection, general intelligence and overall capability. The first gene edit of that kind was done in 2015 and we have officially around 3 or more children with a CCR5 edit. More complex multigenetic combination edits might be done a generation after and so on and on until we got a got a human with a stark difference in intelligence to baseline humans but not to their edited parents and siblings.

>>15302783
Authors should disclose if they have competing interest to present findings in one way or the other.
Doesn't mean that they do, but it's needed for transparency

>>15302905
Oh you meant the actual conflict of interest statement. Derp. Nevermind.

>>15302877
That would require each subsequent generation to agree to it, right?
And they would have to have their partners agree to it or even better be from the same program.
I feel there would be a lot of pressure on these families
Not saying it won't happen, just that society will jump the gun and they will suffer the consequences if everybody will know that they are different

>>15302912
>That would require each subsequent generation to agree to it, right?
I do expect that gene editing will develop in two routes, general (health, fitness/ability and intelligence) and ideal (appearance, personality).
The first method might be subsidized by a universal healthcare and become quite socially acceptable as like tested vaccines you can decrease the chances of cancer and other diseases. Fitness and intelligence will be more complicated to become accepatable but as non positional traits are improvment is under all equal circumstances beneficial and every human, every parent and child tries to become more able and we shape the intelligence and fitness of our children through school education. Through this, genetic editing would just become another part of public healthcare.

Most parents will love and live with their children, independently if they are genetically modified or not. It is more likely though that genetically engineered humans will perform better in general and those genetically engineered who do not, will be seen as weird or lazy, wasting their potential. But that is the right of any person and people will be people, even those bred in an artificial womb. I think that most gene modified will just see themselves as vaccinated 2.0, just that medical technology also allowed them to have a greater variety of gifts and talents they can use however they want.
A greater problem will be helicopter parents that force their child to be what they wish it to be or treat it as a superhuman instead of raising it as its own person. Such forceful treatment will lead to the creation of a perfection or superior complex in some genetically engineered people.
The greatest dangers will be religious fanatics or radical environmentalists that will not see such persons as persons but should hate or fear of others decide of the lives of one?

>>15302937
>>15302912
Long before any of that you've got the embreyo correlates as noted in the polgenic prediction paper and others along those lines by Timothy Raben or associated.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364827610_Polygenic_Health_Index_General_Health_and_Pleiotropy_Sibling_Analysis_and_Disease_Risk_Reduction
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366947299_Sibling_variation_in_polygenic_traits_and_DNA_recombination_mapping_with_UK_Biobank_and_IVF_family_data
and so on.

I think on the same terms you are far more likely to see associative equivalents of the same "risk factor" analysis being employed on positive traits like intelligence for a lot of reasons. One, you can do that right now. Two, laws that exist or may exist on genome editing as technically selecting an embreyo would probably not count. Three, avoids all the social related problems since the fanatics and so on have about as much leg to stand on for embreyo selection as they would protesting spontaneous abortions.

>>15302953
Also if y'all ain't seen this movie it literally is about this very thing regarding embreyo selection that's why I keep referencing it for shits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

>>15302490
Insanely based post. You BTFO'd that pseud so hard he couldn't even bring himself to reply.

>>15294100
>So I find it rather funny he attempted to "pwn" me in a way that affirms my point anyhow.

You can only huff your own farts. His point was salient and you are laughing in self-defense.

'phylogeny is subjective'

Language is subjective. This is adolescent tier mental masturbation. You think you're clever as you're ignoring clearly delineated heritages in human beings for ideological biases.

I'm grateful your types are not clever enough to actually exploit knowledge for power. You will be forever addicted to masturbating over redefining words to justify your brainwashing.

>>15303471
>Language is subjective.
Congratulations. You got one thing right.
>This is adolescent tier mental masturbation. You think you're clever as you're ignoring clearly delineated heritages in human beings for ideological biases.
Nah, you just don't get it. How about bothering to explain what exactly you think I'm "ideologically biased" about?
>I'm grateful your types are not clever enough to actually exploit knowledge for power. You will be forever addicted to masturbating over redefining words to justify your brainwashing.
Where do you think I've "redefined words"?

I'm now morbidly curious what exactly you think I'm being deceitful about, and how exactly.

>>15303496
I'm not the poster that you're responding to, but if you'll allow me. There is a definite 'type' here on /sci/ who are more focused on the definitions of words than in the phenomena that those words describe. (you) neatly fit that 'type' to the extent that I expect you to begin attaching unusual suffixes to things at any moment. It is as though a philosophy department (or seminary) has failed in its attempt to provide a framework with which you can better plan your learning. Instead, it has inadvertently convinced you that you already know everything there is to know. Suffice to say you do not.

>>15303522
Cool a whole bunch more assertions without substance. Also reading me completely wrong but hey who cares about that, you've got neat little heuristics so you don't have to actually think. I'm not about to waste time guessing what you think the problem is. Throwing out partizan accusations ain't it chief. And fuck the twittertards and their fucking 'suffixes'.

Things sure got heated around here for no real reason

>>15303535
Thread hit the bump limit so I'm having fun with it while it lasts. So far mostly they just shit out vitriole and fail to actually argue anything other than "Gasp he thinks something superficially sounding like my enemies so HE'S A WITCH!"

I wonder if buried somewhere behind the lazy cognitive heuristics they think they have a real point or not.

>>15302937
That is a conservative prediction considering the trends we can observe, so I don't see any reason to disagree.
I still remember reading some pulp fiction tier book where humanity separated into three types: people mostly like us (they have some advanced things but after the war it's severerely restricted) that rely on rigid hierarchies, genetically modified humans that go full mentat and brains in a jar way to solve the problem of computation and cyborg people that are merged with AI. Also some dinasaur type aliens in vein of Turtledove version
Parents that smother their children with care and zealots that other people for no real reason are rampant throughout history so it's just something that one has to take into account
>>15302953
I'll check it out when I have time. The pod production is now seriously stalling
As you said the people against it have little influence Through the normal channels, but can do those show up at abolition clinic with a shotgun type of incidents. Imagine how you can convince some unstable people that they are making a fourth Reich with blonge Aryan Ubermenschen there or, on the other hand, trying to make Wakanda real
(the examples are obnoxiously ridiculous intentionally because even that will work on some)
>>15302976
Not sure I want to see it, but I'll think about it

>>15303442
Any specific thing that you want to discuss about this?
>>15303471
>>15303496
>>15303522
>>15303534
What exactly are you three trying to achieve by this rhetorical sophistry that has been going on for days now?
Is "victory" really so sweet you crave it enough to allocate your time and resources to spun this web of assertions and self-aggrandizement?
Pic related

>>15303534
>Also reading me completely wrong
Am I? Were that to be the case you might have pointed to the phenomena you were interested in. You did not do so.

>>15303593
>Am I? Were that to be the case you might have pointed to the phenomena you were interested in. You did not do so.
I don't do circus tricks for narcissistic shitheads. Asked you for substance, you give more BS. Pretty clear what your "type" is, to use your phraseology.

>>15303587
>What exactly are you three trying to achieve by this rhetorical sophistry that has been going on for days now?
For my personal amusement while I wait for something interesting in between. Granted at any point that "something interesting" could've been an earnest discussion, but these meatheads can't seem to manage more than "hurr durr u an ideologue".
>Is "victory" really so sweet you crave it enough to allocate your time and resources to spun this web of assertions and self-aggrandizement?
Dude if someone gets "self-aggrandizement" from an anonymous imageboard they have GOT to be an actual narcissist. Who the hell cares. It kills time and there's a 0.1% one or two people won't be dipshits and be willing to have a real conversation. Like our favorite Russian weeb.

>>15303606
My apologies. Having reread the previous posts I now realize I may have been responding to the individual responding to the racist rather than the racist. /sci/ needs IDs.

>>15303617
Yeah, I suppose so
Just kinda dissapointing seeing 6 new posts after hours of silence for it to be this
>>15303633
That's kind of the charm though, isn't it? Plus people are less constricted

>>15303633
>My apologies. Having reread the previous posts I now realize I may have been responding to the individual responding to the racist rather than the racist. /sci/ needs IDs.
Oh man. Been there. And I agree wholeheartedly. Sadly communication can be quite fuckin ambiguous and I had no idea that was the case either, from my end. No worries.

>>15303646
>Just kinda dissapointing seeing 6 new posts after hours of silence for it to be this
Hey man compare so few of such posts to the entirety of /sci/ right now and you try and tell me we're doing worse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ far fuckin better you ask me

>>15303679
That's true

So... Do we have enough space in this thread for another discussion?
What about cheetahs?
They seem to be on the brink
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-cheetah-reveals-extinction-threat.html
Is it our fault or do they fail naturally?
If that's natural extinction should we make an intervention or let nature take its course and just preserve them in small ammounts?

>>15303852
On principle save the cats. They are orange and we must protect the one braincell they share.

>>15303870
Aren't we interfering too much though?
This idea of "conservation", how reasonable is it?

>>15303617
Hey, thanks for the compliment
I try to raise the bar
It's always been an interesting experience to learn new things this way
A lot of other anons are much more informed than me and I'm glad they chose to share some knowledge here

>>15304020
I guess it's time for the next one.
Gonna dedicate it to the cheetah question as it is the most recent

>>15304024
>>15304033

>>15303565
>>15302976
As a fa/tg/uy, THS may have the most realistic portrayal of the effects of genetic engineering on society at large.