/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15304033
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-cheetah-reveals-extinction-threat.html
Whit do you think?

I guess people are too into Vax complications, psyop theories and climate change debate to talk about fast cats going away

>>15304033
>i am the savior of muh precious baby animals
>i am the savior of mother earth
>>>/an/

>>15304440
Nice strike against the strawman, you might be able to get a hit on the real deal at some point

>>15304472
you'll simp and virtue signal on the internet about your supposed concerns incessantly because of the dopamine bonus you reward yourself with for being so morally superior, but you will never lift a finger otherwise or donate a penny of your own money. posers like yourself are as common as can be, unfortunately.

Let talk about the dopamine reward system, thats some real biology.

>>15304545
cheetahs > chuds.

>>15304433

>>15304545
Never said I was for it
You are raging against the position I don't subscribe to
I'm more concerned with what is more prudent from biological perspective: conservation or letting natural selection take place

That said,
What about the dopamine reward system specifically?

>>15304584
>the position I don't subscribe to
Do you not think it's a little disingenuous to judge a species on it's lack of genetic diversity and to invite 'natural selection take place' when its lack of genetic diversity results from the actions of *your* species?

>>15304591
What makes you believe that humans are responsible for the bottlenecks 100 and 12 thousand years ago?
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/cheetahs-brink-extinction-again/

>>15304037
Can you fuck off and die you avatarfaggot?

>>15304584
>>15304635
How do I filter this obnoxious attention-whore?

>>15304642
Its a jannie, so its allowed to spam

>>15304635
Can you respond to what he actually said? Or are you a bot?

>>15304033
Obviously not why the fuck would you want them to go extinct

>>15304591
>>15304649
What exactly am I supposed to respond to.
Is it disengenious to judge a species not viable because you contribute to its extinction?
Personally I don't think so, but that's because I don't see humans as better than other animals, and other animals that outcompete cheetahs are not concerned

>>15304652
It's the matter of medling in natural processes, cheetahs are just an example

>>15304652
And we will preserve them in captivity, maybe some small reserved in Africa
Maybe even try to introduce diversity to the genepool.
The question is whether we should then reintroduce them after we have stabilized the population like with some other endangered species where we are the biggest contributor to the endangerment

>>15304635
I do not believe that humans are necessarily responsible for the older bottlenecks, but they're certainly responsible for the more recent ones. And since humans have the capacity to *feel* responsibility, I think they should utilize it. Insodoing, they may improve the chances of extending their own survival too. Also I like cheetahs.

>>15304665
I agree that they should do it if it comes naturally one way or the other
Well, cheetahs particularly don't seem to be bothering anyone or anything in their habitats, so no harm in giving them another chance. Their cuteness and ability to be tamed can act as a trump card in an otherwise bad hand just like with domestic cats

>>15304545
So, let's start with the basics
Here's how it's synthesized in the body
Dopamine is involved in a lot of processes, there is probably more that we don't know of.
Putting them into the state of imbalance will certainly affect the reward system too

>>15304708
Here are the receptors for it
So now we have the key and the lock
Next we need to find what doors are opening when they interact
That a bit too complex to put into one pic I feel, but we can go one step a time

>>15304033
yes. predators in general should be phased out, their behaviours are sickeningly cruel. if such a phasing out would result in the collapse of entire ecosystems, then so be it. a lack of an ecosystem is better than one replete with egregious suffering.

>>15304712
One of the useful ways to look at it would be to compare and contrast it with serotonin, seeing as they are closely connected

>>15304714
That's not the kind of talk that is appreciated in the biology circle, anon

Anyone got recommendations for software to analyze genetic network expression behaviour and books to understand the math behind it?

>>15304724
Is something like this applicable?

Guys I have a genuine question about the evolution of signals and communication between organisms. As a non-biologist it appears to me that signals and communication can only evolve by selection of individuals with muscles and nervous systems that are more easily manipulated. For example: if I'm an ancient pigeon and I don't care how other males sound I get my ass kicked and die as an incel. That's why, as a modern pigeon, I can be very impressed by how other males sound and stay away from their territory. I think that's ''my'' decision, but actually it's just how the muscles and the nervous system react. Maybe such a modern pigeon has less freedom to act independently from the chemical state of its muscles and nervous system than a human but behold, a new type of pigeon is born. This pigeon can discriminate between honest and dishonest signals. Still, this ability has to boil down to some molecular mechanism, because pigeons don't go to school to learn the difference.

So does the evolution of signals and communication suggest that decisions are merely an abstraction of a chemical state that we are informed about?

>>15304717

>>15304738
Basic communication is possible on the procaryotic level, maybe one-cellelled eucaryotic if you want to be a bit more cautious

If you want to find some implications on the nature of communication we engage in in evolutionary record it can be an interesting topic, but I would advise against expecting to come out of it more knowledgeable about the question that motivated you to start. You will learn a lot of biology on your way though

>>15304033
Cheetahs and other big cats are going extinct because of human interaction. They are invaluable agents in the the food chain, the disruption would have untold consequences. It is also more costly to supplant them as the apex predator, though viable.

>Should Cheetahs be allowed to go extinct in the wild?

High Council says no.

>>15304745
We are talking about the African savannah here. Plenty of Apex predators around. One of the reasons they are struggling us because their prey gets stolen by hyenas and others and their cubs get murked by the competition. Hence they have white backs to look like honey badgers because they can't defend themselves when young

>>15304742
Are there any books or lectures that you recommend to learn more about how the flower and bee stories relate to the cellular or molecular level?

>>15304758
I would advise starting with some basics
Haven't watched all of it but should be good enough to start
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63LmSVIVzy584-ZbjbJ-Y63

I'm sorry to disappoint but I don't think it's possible to understand it without some background in zoology, cytology, genetics, molecular biology and evolutionary theory

>>15304767
The good news is that it's all available on YouTube and elsewhere for free if you look

>>15304767
>https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63LmSVIVzy584-ZbjbJ-Y63
Thanks for your suggestion anyway.

>>15304033
>Should cheetahs be allowed to go extinct in the wild?
This is our world. If we deem a species interesting enough to live then it shall live and I can dig Cheetah thus they are allowed to exist and thrive on our conditions.

>>15304808

>>15304750
>One of the reasons they are struggling us because their prey gets stolen by hyenas and others and their cubs get murked by the competition
They’ve dealt with that for millions of years just fine. Competition is not why they are struggling today. Hunting and habitat destruction are

>>15304876
How come the other species are not hit as hard then?

>>15304724
see what they do for DepMap at the Broad and copy it. Everything else is probably worse...

>>15304957
Who says they weren’t? The brown hyena in the OP pic has a wild population more or less the same as cheetahs

Mornin gents. Another beautiful day I haven't died in my sleep. One of those days.
>>15304957
Generally speaking the more specialized and derived the traits of a species are for a limited environment the more likely they are to go extinct when said environment gets fucked with. Specialists go extinct quite a lot. This has been noted quite a few times in various papers, just a random example that isn't especially favorable either way https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26998589/
And one you can read more fully to get an idea of overall literature https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.457563v3.full

In any event the notion has long been that successive narrowing of available ecological domains may have macroevolutionary consequences such as extinction. It's one of those ideas that just seems to be true in terms of probability but testing it more formally can be a bit of a bitch.

>>15305040
I would warn you of Alzheimer's risk and other problems with that lifestyle, but if you feel like you won't live long enough to get it anyway, do go on
Interesting. Reminds me of the concept of viewing evolution as peaks and valleys.
For example, Nautilus, Octopus, Human and Grasshopper all have different eyes (plus some more types I forgot)
You might think that Nautilus would benefit from evolving towards the more perseptive eye structure like that of the octopus but it's not that simple. They are both on their "peaks" in terms of evolution. Considering that most other relative species of cephalopods have a more complex eye there seems to be some reason why it doesn't happen in Nautilus
(I'm not exactly sure why, so correct me If I'm wrong on this)
So it's at its peak of adaptability in nature and changing would be to go down the slope and evolution discourages this kind of thing because the Inbetweeners are usually less adaptable than than the current form we have. It might happen, but likely not as they seem to ba an example of a living fossil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
So what does this have to do with cheetahs?
Well they are the fastest thing on land and the third fastest thing alive if I recall (the faster ones are falling birds and swimming fish so it's not exactly a fair comparison). To that end they evolved a balancing tail, irretractable dull claws (due to this they can't climb trees and hide their prey like leopards) and some other things.
They really just specked into speed and kept going because it allowed for best results untill they hit deminishing returns and here we are on their 3rd bottleneck at least

>>15304440
Nothing to do with the OP retard

Is a truly "natural" classification system possible?

>>15306133
No, and arguing over it is just autism. Who cares what it’s called, it is what it is.

>>15306111
i can tell that you're experiencing emotional distress by your attempt at using invective terminology. why don't you take a time out from /sci/ and come back when you've calmed down and are able to discuss science on a rational rather than an emotional basis?

>>15306133
Define natural

>>15306191
Not affected by human bias.

>>15304033
>The field of biology is widely misrepresented and misunderstood on /sci/ and in general, even among other STEM researchers.
ROFL this should be fun.
How does endogenous nuclear biological material last 75 million years when physics fundamentally guarantees that is completely impossible?

>>15306181
Are you a literal homosexual?

>>15304591
>>15304652
>>15304665
>>15304745
>>15304808
>>15304876
>>15305040
>>15306003

Ok, so to summarise:
>Cheetahs are a specialist species living in a very competitive ecosystem so they are naturally being under constant pressure
>Human intervention that is occurring in a lot of different ways, be it direct or indirect disturbed the already shaky position that they find themselves in
>Humans enjoy cheetahs, they are cool and the world would be less interesting to people without them
>Seeing as the ecosystem is not in the best state due to the same human intervention, letting cheetahs go extinct can have unexpected consequences

I never was FOR letting them go extinct, even in the wild (although it can be a temporary situation we will have to remedy by reintroduction) and It seems there's more reasons for helping them get their population stabilized and genetically diverse. No one will lose in that situation, jobs will be made, children will be happy, humanity avoids another stain on its reputation.
Any objections?

>>15306222
Try asking the AI when it gets smart enough to make it's own classification then

>>15306229
https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/03/duckbill-dna/
You talking about this?
I don't see anything impossible about the findings presented here

Also, if you aim to derive pleasure from defending your convictions without a mind open for different possibilities, I would implore you to reconsider, at least in this thread.

>>15306247

>>15306247
AI thinks that black people are Great Apes in the genus Gorilla.

>>15306295
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-apologizes-for-algorithm-mistakenly-calling-black-people-gorillas/

>>15306294
Interesting
Didn't know about the Haitian coup, I guess it was the Monroe doctrine in action
But what does this have to do with biology?

>>15306295
>>15306298
>>15306247
>When it gets smart enough
You can try asking a random passerby on the street with similar results

>>15306304
So are you suggesting that AI is already smart enough?

>>15306304
Or the opposite
It's really a matter of opinion

>>15306003
>I would warn you of Alzheimer's risk and other problems with that lifestyle, but if you feel like you won't live long enough to get it anyway, do go on
I know. I am very well aware. It is not my doing, not my fault, and involves a lot of angry ranting about society because I assure you nobody gives a single shit. So let's just skip rrriiiight over that...
>Interesting. Reminds me of the concept of viewing evolution as peaks and valleys. They are both on their "peaks" in terms of evolution.
Got your meaning, but never heard it put like that.
>So it's at its peak of adaptability in nature and changing would be to go down the slope and evolution discourages this kind of thing because the Inbetweeners are usually less adaptable than than the current form we have.
Yeah people who think evolution and atavisms present some "absolute regress" or derivative traits represent "loss of function" fundamentally do not understand evolution. What you wrote is exactly what they do not understand. Biology can work "near enough analogous", and if it didn't I doubt anything could be alive let alone evolve at all. Since the notion anything could evolve if it required "exact fit structure from exact starting position in each case" would just not be sensible to conceive of as possible.
>example of a living fossil
I rarely like mentioning these due to chronic ignorance of what it means or implies, especially from the rare young earth creationist but also in general. Since it does not mean an organism did not or has not further changed or evolved. On the contrary, it simply means the ecological niche remained stable. Entirely plausible, too, for that to occur if the stages to end up in that ecological niche are no longer rewarding enough for organisms to develop the derived traits necessary to compete for it let alone occupy it. Makes perfect sense if you really get the concept of evolution.

>>15306133
>Is a truly "natural" classification system possible?
No, and for two reasons but the primary one is that "natural kinds" aka "natural categories" don't actually exist anyhow. It's a kind of atavism from an earlier misunderstanding about the nature of logic, language, etc.

Most people get confused about it because they mistake having criteria one can objectively point to is sufficient. That is, having "objective criteria" as therefore "a natural kind". What "a natural category" or "a natural kind" means is very different. A natural category entails a category that would exist independent of the subject, i.e. irrespective of opinion. If it is self evident how that is not possible you need no explanation. If not, jesus christ and I guess read on.

The problem is the definition of what is therefore "a natural category", as one would need for "a natural classification system", is one that requires something impossible. The briefest summary of why:
1. The map is not the territory
2. All representations of reality are by definition dependent on the scope and perspective of why one is attempting to model or describe it.
(1) is hopefully fucking obvious and (2) is apparent given differing specializations of science end up with completely different categorization criteria to ultimately describe different perspectives, i.e. that of their field of study, on what amounts to the exact same things. Ask a three biologists and three physicists about what "energy" means and you will get 27 different answers. Generally completely valid, and equally impossible to unify under the same category as they constitute completely different perspectives and thus necessarily require different criteria.

There's also reason (3), which is "the exact same reason the Principia Mathematica was a fools errand and everyone who ate it alive is now famous" e.g. Godel, wittgenstein, etc.
>>15306247
The only valid answer will necessarily be "that entails a logical contradiction".

>>15306311
I understand, just take care as much as you can, anon

The idea of peaks is from Dawkins if I remember correctly, some YouTube video on climbing the mount improbable I watched in high school. There a book too, but I didn't read it.

Yeah, evolution is one of the most misunderstood things in biology. Many biologists (including myself to be intelectually honest) don't understand it fully.

Yeah, it's a very loaded term for something completely different from what it appears to be. Crocodiles and crabs are technically close to that definition if you think about it.

>>15306241
>Ok, so to summarise:
You forgot to summarize the best reason.
I wanna pet one because big dumb orange anxiety cat is cute

>>15306349
Technically it should be possible to make a giant and I mean enormous "family tree" for all living things at least starting now and track them that way
Not bacteria and protists thought
That's a kind of natural classification I guess?

>>15306358
>Humans enjoy cheetahs, they are cool and the world would be less interesting to people without them

>>15306359
>Technically it should be possible to make a giant and I mean enormous "family tree" for all living things at least starting now and track them that way
No, not at all, not even a little. The fact is any referent point is fundamentally merely a matter of utility because biology an evolution are continuums without natural breaking point. That NECESSARILY means where you define the categories requires choosing the breaking point as a subjective matter.

If we had every single specimen from the origin of life until now I expect a lot of people would throw up their hands and pretend we didn't because it's just fuckin easier.

>>15306360
>>Humans enjoy cheetahs, they are cool and the world would be less interesting to people without them
Nuh uh, I said they're cute too! :P

>>15306362
Yeah, it's not practically possible, but if we seed life on a planet... We will certainly try that

>>15306364
All right, you win, anon
More funding for the cheetahs

>>15306362
>>15306359
Look it really comes down to what I explained in that post. You cannot be said to have a category that isn't a contradiction, and therefore meaningless, unless and only if there are criteria set to distinguish it. By definition. The act of selecting said criteria is by definition a matter of perspective, utility, etc.
>>15306371
Well, more that we'd just change our criteria for what makes the classifications useful and otherwise hope the remainder doesn't cause issues. Like literally everything else we do.
>>15306372
Yay!

>>15306373
Yeah, I agree. Just wanted to expand on the subject

>>15306406
No how dare you fight me
No wait nevermind does that mean I get to pet my cheetah now?

>>15304033
if africans want to drive their wildlife to extinction, thats there perogative.
messiah complex types always leverage their insanity to narcissistically presume that they own the entire planet and that it's their job to manage other people's affairs. its playing out in uganda right now, they want to ban homosexuality in their country and mentally ill faggots from america and europe are all acting as if they deserve to have a say in the matter.
>i'm such a wonderful person because i pretend to care about animals on the internet
sure care for animals, hate the humans who have to live with them. maybe cheetahs are a nuisance animal that steals livestock.
>millions of africans must starve to death in order to service my narcissistic savior complex
what a saint
plus they'll never go extinct anyway, africa has massive, massive nature preserves, the likes of which exist nowhere else on the planet, even wood-buffalo in canada is dwarfed by the vastness of african nature preservation programs

>>15306241
By the way don't feed the trolls who are obviously making all manner of retarded assumptions to satisfy their narcissistic need for superiority or validation. Nobody remotely sane thinks they're anything but retarded. E.g. >>15306451

>>15304033
The last time we had a good thread about wildlife it was probably 2 years ago about ocelots. No one really cares I guess. What is a cheetah? Like a cuter jaguar?

>>15306285
>You talking about this?
I like how you don't even pretend you had a clue what I was talking about until you googled some buzzwords and found a pop sci article about it...
>I don't see anything impossible about the findings presented here
...And then act like your opinion matters ROFL!!!
I didn't ask if you can't find something impossible with a pop sci article you don't understand. I asked how it can happen.
Hint: it can't. The overwhelming response to the findings behind that paper is that it MUST be a false positive. i.e. "ear plugging when you see evidence you don't like because it destroys your worldview"
Hopefully in the next decade someone assumes it's actual DNA remnants and tries to sequence it. I'll grab my popcorn and watch evolutionary biologists when they lecture nuclear physicists that nuclear half lifes don't actually exist anymore because their narrative requires it

>>15306451
>millions of africans must starve to death in order to service my narcissistic savior complex
Yes.

>>15306479
Physics is a meme "science"

>>15306479
>I asked how it can happen.
NTA. First, clarify something for me would ya sparky?
>>15306229
>How does endogenous nuclear biological material last 75 million years when physics fundamentally guarantees that is completely impossible?
You surely, SURELY, did not mean DNA/RNA or something like that when you puked out that word salad, right?
>The overwhelming response to the findings behind that paper is that it MUST be a false positive.
I already know what paper you're referring to and oh boy is this going to be fun. Go ahead dipshit name the paper. Bet you're referring to Mary Schweitzer. Depending on your answer about that inital word salad determines just HOW BADLY I mop the floor with you.

>>15306456
Yeah, sometimes they can be amusing but it's like the social version of hard drugs. You gotta be careful it doesn't consume you.
>>15306461
Ocelots are cool. I had a spin-off Nat Geo magazine special that had all existing species of cats. A lot of amazing ones. But to not be shamed to go to the other board let's keep it hush hush on cat love
>>15306479
I'm not Mr biology, My specialty is neurophysiology and I won't claim superior understanding even in the small field of intersection between autophagy and Alzheimer's, let alone something that I took like one or 2 semesters in a while ago and then read some extra articles later. All I have is the general methodology and limited knowledge on the subject. If you really feel the need to prove that this result is impossible post some counter arguments from credible sources and if there is none petition physicists or someone else qualified to look into it.
You would be surprised how much "googling pop sci articles" you do sometimes if you must get a general view on the topic for a throw away slide in your internal presentation or something. Plus I don't know any experts in the field personally to ask
>>15306493
Can you share the link? Seems interesting even if it's a disaster

>>15306493
>I already know what paper you're referring to
>Bet you're referring to Mary Schweitzer
What an amazing lack of confidence, especially considering I directly said other anon easily found a pop sci link of the paper. Bravo. You really think you deserve a cookie for reaching the painfully obvious conclusion of which paper I'm talking about. Just bravo
>Go ahead dipshit name the paper
Imagine thinking anyone would have a real engagement with an ad-hominem-ing angry little child such as yourself. LOL. Go fuck yourself kid

>>15306493
>Depending on your answer about that inital word salad determines just HOW BADLY I mop the floor with you.
Are you the same midwit who got BTFO in the last thread?

>>15306549
>What an amazing lack of confidence, especially considering I directly said other anon easily found a pop sci link of the paper. Bravo. You really think you deserve a cookie for reaching the painfully obvious conclusion of which paper I'm talking about. Just bravo
Neato. So mind telling us why you think physics would conclude the remnants of biological structures, such as leftover cartilage, wouldn't be there if it was completely held in vacuum?

Do try to figure that one out. I want you to dance for me.
>Imagine thinking anyone would have a real engagement with an ad-hominem-ing angry little child such as yourself. LOL. Go fuck yourself kid
Pure projection.
>>15306544
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/4/815/5762999?login=false
I can explain the significance and the actual meaning if you want. Fuckhead young earthers, like flat earthers and the rest, won't/can't understand anything about the science so they make up lies they share among one another like campfire ghost stories.

There's nothing impossible about this, EXCEPT insofar as it was thought effectively impossible due to the nature of fossilization. One would expect cellular breakdown if there were any permeability, but there are extremely rare cases where a vacuum gets created and it protects the leftover dead tissues from the ensuing decay. That isn't to say what remains is "dead tissue" but not eaten by something else or otherwise dissolved and so forth. As noted,
>This is comparable to features of extant calcified cartilage [4] observed in ground sections of defleshed, juvenile emu skulls, where some lacunae are empty, and others retain cells and intracellular contents including nuclei (Fig. 1G).
So only possible where conditions are rather perfect for such remnants and such that they're isolated from anything else that'd happen.

>>15306572
>>15306544
Also as with most scientific successes the only reason it was thought to be possible in spite of the improbability related to discoveries of similar findings in the lacunae of another species. So, similar bones and similar structures and testing the feasibility of that lead to more carefully investigating the lacunae of an analogous structure in a comparable dinosaur.

Naturally, of course, they wouldn't be nutcases if the success of scientific investigation didn't somehow mean to them "so all science is wrong". Cringe.

>>15306572
I don't see my reason that it could happen at least once. Much less possible coincidences have occurred

But I was getting an impression that there is some credible disputation to that article from the tone of the conversation. Is there really nothing but "it's physically impossible because it never happened before"?

>>15306576
Makes sense, that's just scientific discovery going as intended
>>15306581
Couldn't*

>>15306581
>But I was getting an impression that there is some credible disputation to that article from the tone of the conversation. Is there really nothing but "it's physically impossible because it never happened before"?
Not at all. The disputes were largely of a nature of concerns with respect to the possibility of sample contamination, and other more relevant concerns that certainly could produce the same effects through lack of caution. Very few people of any relevance would be stupid enough to actually reason "didn't happen before so it can't". At least not publicly if they like their career trajectory.

From what I can gather once people read the stuff and understood the structures and analogous manner involved, I don't think people really had issue with that at all. Subsequent researchers also went scrambling to examine other analogous dinosaurs with similar lacunae, and you'll see that in the works citing Mary's paper e.g. "Fossilized cell nuclei are not that rare: Review of the histological evidence in the Phanerozoic" and others. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339566392_Evidence_of_proteins_chromosomes_and_chemical_markers_of_DNA_in_exceptionally_preserved_dinosaur_cartilage
Citation tab is nearer the bottom in case it defaults to "references".
>>15306583
Yeah, but the really big lie young earthers made up was that this was live tissue or something. It's fossilized. Mary has endlessly corrected this lie herself in interviews, over and over again, because she herself used to be a young earther and she knows just how out of control their lying can be. Plenty of interviews with her clarifying on that lie. All "tissues" are in effect also fossilized.

>>15306561
>Are you the same midwit who got BTFO in the last thread?
You can try your whole life pal and you'll get about as close to "btfoing" me as a gnat would to moving uranus out of its orbit. Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams. But do please keep up the increasingly self evident delusion you have about it as I continue to demonstrate rather broad intimate knowledge of wide ranging particulars. Surely that is somehow just more evidence of my being full of shit.

If that helps you sleep at night (:

>>15306594
>because she herself used to be a young earther and she knows just how out of control their lying can be.
Am I understanding this right?
A previously young earhter turned into the paleontologist on the cusp of a big discovery in the archeological field is an interesting journey to say the least.
I need to put a pin in this for future reference

>>15306603
That's cool,but what if some of that knowledge turns out to be false before you can update your views?
The scientific process is not about btfo someone or having a big range of knowledge. That big range is a tool to expand humsnity's understanding and this endeavour should be done with sufficient humility.
That said, nothing wrong with being proud of your achievements inherently, just need to be intelectually honest with yourself

>>15306617
No no, not on the CUSP, it was over her starting a career relating to that and biology and so on in evolution.

Basically what usually happens when someone intelligent is born from hyper-religious retard fundamentalist parents. If they're shielded from information hard enough they'll retain the belief right up until they can go find out for themselves. So she did. She hasn't been a young earther in a long ass time once she learned what evolution actually was. This discovery is way after that.

>>15306623
Oh, I see. Interesting. I feel like a person like that would be uniquely qualified for this and have a higher than average motivation to pursue the truth if they have been denied that for so long during their formative years

>>15306622
>That's cool,but what if some of that knowledge turns out to be false before you can update your views?
Given I've historically done so and had to do so numerous times, "no doi". I mean yeah :P. Same goes for occasionally realizing some mistaken belief from childhood parroted at you from idiots was retained uncritically, though mostly due to disuse. I've gotten used to asking "Wait why do I think I know this" and if I can't recall I go find out.

You'd be surprised how little appreciated changing your mind is, though, if by some confluence of circumstances you're wrong in spite of trying to not be wrong. Especially if someone ends up right for the wrong reasons. It happens to everyone in any case, if they're not delusional or live under a rock.
>The scientific process is not about btfo someone or having a big range of knowledge. That big range is a tool to expand humsnity's understanding and this endeavour should be done with sufficient humility.
I would hope you would've caught on that my attitude toward certain kinds of people depends entirely on how they behave. For good reason. Please do not mistake my behavioral flexibility and code-switching for some hidden narcissism or something. Hell, I only enjoy doing it because I fucking hate narcissists.
>>15306629
Real sad thing is I sincerely doubt anyone appreciates that either. Young earthers DEFINITELY don't.

>>15306633
Just checking to be sure, but I believe that you believe that you try to stay vigilant with your worldview, and that's more than you can expect on the anonymous imageboard.

I have a feeling some people, maybe a lot, after graduating the last level on the educational ladder that they wanted to pursue, just calcify in most of their understanding of the world around them as it's much better to streamline it to increase efficiency in day to day life ahead of them.
Sometimes I wonder if that attitude can actually be connected with your level of neuroplasticity and thus "turn thoughts into reality"
Yeah, I get that the aggressive attitude is deliberate for the most part. Just be careful it doesn't get to you too much. Even righteous anger can burn you out from inside.

>>15306654
Who knows. I'm sure some people might have good ideas, but psychology didn't interest me much. I'm not sure about any connection to neuroplasticity, though. Possibly rather just a matter of complacency, and the remaining difference of those who are complacent vs complacent but curious is just a matter of personality or something? Whatever that means.
>Yeah, I get that the aggressive attitude is deliberate for the most part. Just be careful it doesn't get to you too much. Even righteous anger can burn you out from inside.
If one takes one self too seriously life can't be fun anymore. Thankfully I'm no longer that young. Helps to not take yourself so seriously as to end up believing you can do anything but fuck with the fuckers.

>>15306661
It's just an interesting concept that seems like something ridiculous (psychosomatic changes in the brain? Don't be ridiculous, that's some homeopathy level bs!) But there just seems to be a lot of incidental data that supports that there is something going on behind the scenes.
For a somewhat academic and not just anecdotal example, in children with IBS a portion of the colon with polyps was removed and the healthy tissue was implanted instead. In a few weeks the polyps appeared in the same places by themselves. During investigation people that conducted the experiment came to a conclusion that one of the reasons might be that the nervo-humoural control system was adapted to polyps being there and just regrew them because they were supposed to be there to maintain homeostasis. Take it with a dead sea of salt, but it's definitely something that did it.
As for actual convictions resulting in physiological changes there are reports of many kinds, but nothing resembling a good theory at the moment.
Could be nothing, but could be something real big, can't know for sure.

Maybe "the angry adolescent fighting for the good against all that is bad" is a nessesary step towards adulthood and we should just treat people like that with some level of tolerance?
People who went through this usually remember those that tried to subtly guide them towards more reasonable expectations in the best light

>>15306544
>post some counter arguments from credible sources
I can't find an open link to the original 2012 paper but this is a respectable summary. It's behind free-wall so you can register if you want.
https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/half-life-of-dna-revealed-40361
>Based on their calculations, the team predicted that even under perfect conditions for DNA preservation, it would take a maximum of 6.8 million years for every bond to be destroyed. And even before that time—after around 1.5 million years—the remaining strands of DNA would be too short to be readable. So a dinosaur bone, which would be at least 65 million years old, could never yield useable genetic information
The 2020 link you found uses one chemical marker that requires a chain of at least 6 base pair bonds to generate reactivity. Their ridiculous ad hoc baseless excuse for finding "70 million year old" bp markers that should not exist is "chemically altered base pairs that can still react to PI and DAPI" meaning the original base pairs deteriorated into... other base pairs. Magic. They blissfully believe a closed system/highly isolated dead cell just got free energy over millions of years to perform chemical reactions and restructure base pairs over and over again I guess (after the first restructuring it resets the clock, so you get another 6.8 million years and have to do it again or else you're left with nothing and the marker would show nothing today)
As I said, I'll be grabbing my popcorn when they accidentally discover these strands are sequenceable /readable

>>15306581
>>15306617
>>15306622
>>15306629
>>15306654
>>15306688
>>15306730
Dammit I just realized this is a bot

>>15304033
I think it's sad how some animals went extinct before modern humans had a chance to document and study them, because that's knowledge we've lost. We could've had video of giant sloths shaped like bears, and giant guinea pigs shaped like cows. But there's more video of cheetahs than a single human can view in a lifetime and I feel like they've been studied to death. It would be good if they went extinct so all those millions of people involved in cheetahs can go study a new animal already.

>>15306741
not only that, its run by a jannie so there is no getting rid of it. its a well poisoning technique put in place maybe because they can't control the narrative here or maybe as revenge, the one running it also does "the history of biology postcast", it was shilling it's monetized youtube channel here using the same set of images until it got called out as a shill, then it stopped and started up this.

>>15306730
Like a living chinese room experiment. Parrots the words with zero understanding.
>They blissfully believe a closed system/highly isolated dead cell just got free energy over millions of years
Feel free to show your equations demonstrating this necessity. Can't wait. Feel free to upload the files and your models.
>Their ridiculous ad hoc baseless excuse for finding "70 million year old" bp markers that should not exist
You mean common general knowledge with respect to ancient DNA sequencing that you don't know about because you can't even skim wikipedia? While you're at it feel free to explain exactly what value sequencing highly degraded DNA would have when all you'd get out of it is fragments of garbage.
>is "chemically altered base pairs that can still react to PI and DAPI" meaning the original base pairs deteriorated into... other base pairs. Magic.
Really? Neat. Where do I get my wizard hat? Since you think commonly known facts are magic.
>As I said, I'll be grabbing my popcorn when they accidentally discover these strands are sequenceable /readable
Given everything done with respect to ancient DNA to date indicates whatever base pairs exist tend to be crosslinked and filled with chemically modified nucleotides? What exactly do you think you would glean from doing so? If you answer anything but "a bunch of garbage", we'll know you still haven't even bothered reading the basic wikipedia articles.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Structures-of-eight-oxidative-base-modifications-detected-in-the-ancient-DNA-For_fig2_14585192
Oh look, chemically modified nucleotides! Those things that you think don't exist and are "ad hoc".
Oh look, that very same article explains why such chemical replacements that "doesn't exist" can render things non-sequenceable!
>>Since the hydantoinsare likely to block strand elongation by DNA polymerases, it isreasonable that they would make enzymatic amplification ofDNA sequences impossible

>>15306812
>thinks I read that
Like I said, go fuck yourself kid

>>15306827
It is entirely self evident you do not read. That isnt the own you think it is.

>>15306835
>That isnt the own you think it is
Of course it isn't, but pointing out you are such a fragile ego retard you accidentally had a 5 post conversation with a tensorflow bot above sure is HAHA!!! You are so pathetic you need to bloviate to a bot and are totally clueless you're doing it. Now that is an own.

>>15306741
>>15306769

>>15304957
They’re more of a specialist than most of the others, but that doesn’t mean others weren’t hit hard as well. Cheetahs in Asia were nearly wiped out, but so were Asiatic lions and Siberian tigers despite them being apex predators

>>15307023
You should fuck with them more by pretending you're a robot instead in the most obviously childish way. Just add "beep boop" and whatnot. It'd be funny.

>>>>15308622

Nah, I'm good
Got 24 hours to think whether posting AI generated unique pictures is too much of an avatar/signature when you can just write your name and that's just fine.
I guess it doesn't matter, I'm here to learn new things and have interesting discussions
(and shill my stupid podcast and make that sweet sweet 0.01$ when I "inevitably" hit 1000 subs get another 3980 watch hours this year)
Not sure why I got sidetracked into trying to have a functional biology general instead of reading sources or relaxing in my spare time

Is it actually useful to anyone?

>>15309426
In between anything else I'm doing it's useful to me to help remember/expand my various interests. You know, repetition and memory and all that.

Seems not many are genuinely interested in biology around here though. Big surprise.

Big suprise indeed
Any topics you want to freshen up specifically?

>>15309436
Not at present, no, I was taking things as they come to interject between studying other things. Not relevant in any case. Sorry. I'll see you around in any event, or if anyone asks questions.

Back to work for me

>>15306350
>The idea of peaks is from Dawkins if I remember correctly, some YouTube video on climbing the mount improbable I watched in high school. There a book too, but I didn't read it.
The concept of fitness peaks comes from Fisher and Wright in the 1930s. Dawkins is more of a populariser than an ideas man.
I mean that in the nicest possible way. Dawkins Royal Society lectures were a big factor in piquing my interest in evolutionary biology as a kid. Climbing Mount Improbable is basically the same material as those lectures, if I remember right.

>>15309440
No problems, wish you a productive day.
>>15309469
Yes, I should have mentioned that, but he is good at stating his sources right in the text, not just in the references, so people can find about it there.
The selfish gene and extended phenotype seem to be his ideas based on previous findings of many biologists though, right?

>>15309492
He coined the term "selfish gene", but I don't think any of the ideas in the book were new. I will give him the extended phenotype concept.

>>15306451
>messiah complex types always leverage their insanity to narcissistically presume that they own the entire planet
I'm such a saint!! I'm doing it all for you!!
Now you owe me, bigtime.

>>15309531
Yeah, that what I thought too. Still a pretty big achievement in my eyes.
He wrote the book in 1982 when he was 41 and if I recall said in one of the newer editions that he consideres it to be the one book on biology by him he would recommend people to read olif they want to read just one

Plus The selfish gene was a response to the growth of the opposing view and so promoted the balance by putting substantial weight behind his view.

>>15309547
I probably didn't specify enough that he wrote the selfish gene in 1979 and the Extended phenotype in 1982

>>15309426
Ok, time for a new topic
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Moroz+LL&filter=years.2021-2021&timeline=expanded
What do you think about this concept?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20029182/

(Pic from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2021.669087/full))

>>15306730
To be honest it seems much harder to invent some sequences from the supposed dinasaurs which are noticeably distinct from the other species for which we know their DNA and simultaneously viable to allow some next steps.
And even then, if they can make fake dinasaurs by collaborating with the "turn chicken into raptor" project, that's kind of exiting, isn't it?

>>15309606
NTA. Well, it wouldn't literally be a raptor. You'd just end up with something looking like one. Maybe. Not literally one. Also given how the base pairs degrade and fuse over time after a certain point even if you could somehow sequence what remains you'd get something like near-total noise. That is why what he claimed about "physics being wrong about it being impossible" is, well, completely wrong. What's not possible is reversing that process to get meaningful information, after a certain amount of time. Does not matter how perfect the conditions are, after some million or two million years what remains could not be said to be meaningful even if it could be sequenced. So he missed a very crucial part of what the issue is. "can be sequenced" does not mean "is meaningful to sequence".

>>15304708
>the state of imbalance
and this state is defined by what exactly?

>>15309649
One of these >>15304717 moving drastically from the individual's personal baseline for starters

>>15309639
Yeah, exactly. But it doesn't seem like they claim that something valuable can be salvaged, maybe some chromosomal info at best

>>15309740
He either has to believe that something meaningful could result, hence contradicting estimates, or has to have misunderstood the estimate. Either way he got a core feature of what he was talking about wrong. That is why I inferred what I did.

>>15309775
Understood

>>15309583
Come on, isn't marine biology and the theory that there are several different nervous systems cool?

What the hell is going on on this board?
3 threads on suicide, 2 on the Pythagorean theorem stuff, a bazillion AI threads and stupid questions.
What happened?

>>15311384
not enough bio majors probably :)

>>15311391
Probably a good thing owerall, but a bit disappointing to us

>>15311416
yeah honestly it's quite telling the majority of us are only doing bio for pre-med. The world only needs so many people to look at water temperatures or whatever.

>>15307023
>that much cringe effort only to fail this hard
One of the most pathetic things I've seen on any board. It's mind boggling how you think it's not obvious you made the bot and are now trying to distract from the obvious fact it's a bot. Other anon's post pointing out this fact was deleted long after the time limit, proving you are the mod he was talking about because only mods can delete after time limit*.
>>15309426
>Got 24 hours to think whether posting AI generated unique pictures is too much of an avatar/signature
So you claim to be that ai art "anon" (ie the bot you made). Why did you delete the "AI generated picture" post number >>15306769 then? Let me grab my popcorn!!
>>15309606
>And even then, if they can make fake dinasaurs by collaborating with the "turn chicken into raptor" project, that's kind of exiting, isn't it?
It's impossible to get "dino DNA" if it is 75 million years old. EVERY molecular bond is destroyed in 1/10th that time as per link I gave. If base pairs could reform (they can't in dead cells *after that long*: there is nothing to provide energy to make up for the increase in entropy due to endothermic reactions) it would be 100% gibberish genetic code and not dino DNA due to ALL bonds being reformed at random.
>>15309639
>That is why what he claimed about "physics being wrong about it being impossible" is, well, completely wrong
I don't know what you mean by this double negative you made but see above. I'm correct and it's trivial.
>near-total noise
Now this is completely wrong. It physically must be 100% total noise. Not "near." There is no mechanism that can preserve any of the original code after that long.
>"can be sequenced" does not mean "is meaningful to sequence".
Hence, grab my popcorn watching the zealots' olympic level mental gymnastics when trying to explain the contradiction over finding meaningful dino DNA in the next decade. It would be tantamount to finding a 70 million year old human skeleton.

>>15311469
Too much popcorn is bad for you, anon. Eat some veggies and steak, would you.
You can believe what you want about my nature but consider the hilarity that I would feel if it turned out I'm just some anon from the middle of nowhere that writes very rapidly on his phone when it's a slow hour at work.
At least we are both getting some enjoyment out of this. At least I hope that you are enjoying yourself, otherwise it's a bit uncomfortable getting laughs at your expense


Anyway, who cares who I am aside from my knowledge of biological sciences and other things in this thread?
You wanna talk about how some squishy stuff from the ocean has a completely different neural system or something like that or not?

>>15311459
Well for my part I only ever wanted to be pharmacist or a cook instead of researcher.
Just looking at med students tells me It's an admirable pursuit but not for me

>>15311469
>Now this is completely wrong. It physically must be 100% total noise.
With respect to its original structure, yes. With respect to sequencing, i.e. whether such advances in methods may render it possible to nonetheless sequence the remainder degraded base pairs where present, is another matter. Yes, I could have clarified the context with which I meant the analogy better. No, I do not expect you to accept clarification from anyone if or when it removes your "gotchas". Nor do I expect you to understand why the analogy applies in that case either.
>Hence, grab my popcorn watching the zealots' olympic level mental gymnastics when trying to explain the contradiction over finding meaningful dino DNA in the next decade. It would be tantamount to finding a 70 million year old human skeleton.
Which, as noted, is not a meaningful prediction due to the degradation processes of DNA no matter how perfectly preserved. Even with the possibility of certain tests indicating self-repair in bacteria. All the evidence presently known is against you, while in the case of Mary there was prior evidence indicating the possibility of calcified retrival. Do not equivocate between the two. Your ignorantly jerking off in glee about others being wrong due to "mental gymnastics", as earlier explained due to your ignorance of the research, is not evidence. Researchers like Mary have evidence. All you have is ego.
>>15311391
You try knowing anything at all about actual genetics research or any relevant biology around here for around five seconds and see what happens. Everything you attempt to point out about uncertainties and actually honest representation of that research is met with facebook level flat earth/antivaxxer understandings and ideological dogma. This place is where science goes to die.

>>15311561
I guess people just want to win so much they can't wait to burn everything down including logic and reason.
I noticed that I care much more than I should about this stuff when other things in life are not so good too, so that might be involved.

>>15311561
For any interested parties here's the scientific publication text from the popsci article. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232231688_The_half-life_of_DNA_in_bone_Measuring_decay_kinetics_in_158_dated_fossils

If anyone recalls, I pointed out earlier he must fundamentally not understand one of two things. Either the estimate and reasons for such estimate, or thinking something meaningful of the original DNA could result anyway. It appears it's both, but primarily the first. The decay relationship modeled from the experiments is given as an exponential relationship (declining of course),
Where rate constant (k) depends on absolute temperature (T), where A is the pre-exponential factor, E_a is the activation energy, and R the gas constant.
[eqn]ln\ k = ln(A) - \frac{E_{a}}{R(1/T)}[/eqn]

As the decay depends on temperature, it is possible given some average extremely low temperature somehow held constant to have examples at average length = 1bp stretching out to 6.8 million years for mtDNA. Colder gets you longer. These are also very optimistic in that it makes no accounting of initial post-mortem decay. Given absolutely perfect conditions at low enough temperature? Yeah, it is possible. Plausible? No. So is it accurate to say "the physicists would be wrong"? Not if it comports near this model.

The context here is important. Such formalizations and modeling helped further research efforts to scrutinize numerous claims of such DNA in the 90s and 2000s, and which turned out to be experimental artefact or contamination. I.e. in being grossly off required conditions and all experimentation. So re-examination on that basis did inevitably discover the results as due to error. Science as usual.
>>15306229
>How does endogenous nuclear biological material last 75 million years when physics fundamentally guarantees that is completely impossible?
It does not guarantee it is impossible. You don't know the first shit about the first fuck is the issue.

>>15311572
Rather astute of you, I think. People unhappy in life tend to not make cautious contemplative thinkers and the unhappier you get the worse it tends to be. Same way the fed dog may be a lot more tolerant than the hungry one I suppose. Don't know. Not a psychologist.

In any event persons with any remotely relevant expertise pertaining to the ideologues claiming causal certainy from mere genetic correlation is sufficient to drive any sane person away. After all, why bother. You don't tend to find pharmacologists arguing with antivaxxers, or NASA astronauts with flat earthers, and I imagine for the same reason most biologists wouldn't bother here either. It is a complete and total waste of time and nothing you say will be respected no matter how carefully planned.

That I remain is pure masochism on my part.

>>15311634
listen, nothing is settled in science. Case in point the ~6 million year limit for DNA recovery can be modified by environmental conditions and such. These findings wouldn't be here if we weren't allowed to challenge previous results, and if that means people argue against prevailing knowledge so be it. Just so happens that 4chan likes to challenge prevailing views, and as annoying as that may be to discussion I'd rather let that portion of the community exist and keep getting transformative research.
But yes, staying here to discuss science is quite painful at times and I don't know why I do it myself.

>>15311648
I am well aware of that. The issue isn't that one can challenge the view, the issue is the sheer narcissism and ignorance involved in claiming "the science is wrong" based on ignorance and refusal to learn or take correction.
>But yes, staying here to discuss science is quite painful at times and I don't know why I do it myself.
I do it myself, in spite of my joke about narcissism, to better understand the dumbest POSSIBLE misunderstandings. If I can conceive and work through those, I can fucking teach anyone anything who isn't being deliberately retarded. Trust me, it works.

>>15311648
I am well aware of that. The issue isn't that one can challenge the view, the issue is the sheer narcissism and ignorance involved in claiming "the science is wrong" based on ignorance and refusal to learn or take correction.
>But yes, staying here to discuss science is quite painful at times and I don't know why I do it myself.
I do it myself, in spite of my joke about masochism, to better understand the dumbest POSSIBLE misunderstandings. If I can conceive and work through those, I can fucking teach anyone anything who isn't being deliberately retarded. Trust me, it works.

Edited and reposted as I made some catastrophic word substitutions. Writing while distracted is a bad habit of mine.

>>15311631
>>15306229

Yeah, my botany professor told me this process of reasing the article:
a) Read the abstract. If it appears to be Interesting then
b) read the results and discussion. If there really is something valuable then
c) read the rest and maybe check some references

So, from the discussion section:
>"It is tempting to suggest that we can now predict the
temporal limits of DNA survival, and i nally refute the
claims of authentic DNA from Cretaceous and Miocene
specimens. This is, however, not straightforward. One
needs information on the number of template molecules
in living tissues, and estimates of post-mortem DNA
decay rates for each tissue type. However, the half-life
predictions (table 1) display the extreme improbability
that an authentic 174 bp long mtDNA fragment of an
80–85 Myr old bone could have been amplif i ed [1].
Our results indicate that short fragments of DNA could
be present for a very long time; at –58C, the model predicts
a half-life of 158000 years for a 30 bp mtDNA fragment in
bone (table 1). Even rough estimates such as this imply
that sequenceable bone DNA fragments may still be pre-
sent more than 1 Myr after deposition in deep frozen
environments. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest
that future research may identify authentic DNA that is
signif i cantly older than the current record of approximately
450–800 kyr from Greenlandic ice cores [47]."

>>15311697
Is that supposed to refer to me? I am assuming not, but it is ambiguous. If you actually read what I wrote >>15311631 and brief allusion to the ensuing research following with respect to skepticism of old DNA discovery, you'd know I satisfied (c), but you forgot the important part.
(d) Read the subsequent literature citing the fucking paper.

>>15311670
It's probably the same narcissism that was prevalent among inteligencia during the 19th century
Just look at how Darwin was treated after publishing the origin of species
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricatures_of_Charles_Darwin_and_his_evolutionary_theory_in_19th-century_England

>>15311724
I've no doubt. There's a reason I do these escapades anonymously. How anyone does it on Youtube or whatever I can't fathom. Not worth it. Can't pay me enough. Fuuuuuuuck that noise.

>>15311707
Just gesturing in the general direction of the discussion.
We both seem to be trying to respond to the gentleman that keeps trying to grab his popcorn but can't quite reach it.
The professor didn't include that point, I guess it was reserved for students a few years in.
But I agree, nobody brings up papers from 1974 without mentioning subsequent research

>>15311730
I guess so. Personally I have so much demons in my head that the online attacks just meld together with them without much change.
Plus sometimes you're really out of your depth and need a little beating to learn and improve.

>>15311737
>Just gesturing in the general direction of the discussion.
Ah, I had assumed but given how frequently people intentionally misrepresent things I could not be sure you were the same anon acting in good faith either. Alas.
>The professor didn't include that point, I guess it was reserved for students a few years in.
Ah well with regard to my seeming hostility on that point that's a stickler for me, as it is probably one of the most aggravating things I get to experience with "buht muh 1 study" types. That is, as well as not reading the references, if anyone even bothers to they fail to check followup literature especially for old literature to understand its context. This is ESPECIALLY a failure of anti-science retards parroting some 40 year old research acting as if it is the God's chosen truth purely because someone published it. Which I suspect is due to their fundamental misunderstanding in thinking that's somehow what scientists are doing or something, as if it's all relative just because they're too inept to understand it. I could go on. You get what I mean by "a bit of a stickler for me" by now I suppose lol
>>15311741
Isn't even "attacks", I just know in my heart of hearts it accomplishes nothing to waste any time on the fools errand of the fools. If I didn't have other reasons I'd definitely never do it like the other, likely more sane, professionals.

>>15311751
Complete conjecture I pulled out of my ass below, be warned:

Considering the general vibe with IQ worship and AI fear plus racism I feel like the strain of the anonymous that frequents /sci/ is really miffed about the social lift aspect of STEM. That average people without some gigabrain from a third world country with working class parents can just become really interested in a subject and put a lot of work into their studies and get lucky enough to qualify for scholarship in a decent but not prestige university and become respectable experts in their field while retaining the influence on their character from their culture and class and not hating the world that brought them up.
"Now way that's possible!"
"They must be diversity hires or secret Asians/Jews!"
"They ruin science!"

Even more infuriating when they decide to branch out and using a commonly available tech and software grow a modest platform to spread awareness on the internet.


But psychoanalysing the anonymous imageboard as a whole is a fruitless endeavour so that was just a world salad for fun while I wait for the teapot to heat up

>>15311783
Eh, at least you're aware of the fruitlessness of it. Plenty people seem to do it as a full time fuckin hobby lol

I think most of it is just outright dishonest with nolife trolls or genuine ideologues thinking they can somehow "trick" people into believing their bullshit by claiming dishonesty is somehow honesty and vice verse. With the possibility of other groups "practicing rhetoric" and so on. Multitude of possibilities without psychoanalyzing anybody, just common human tendencies. Plus quite a lot of genuine narcissists, and I mean that clinically sofar as I understand it.

>>15311697
By the way, good on you for actually reading a paper. I think I can count on one hand how many people do without just cherrypicking things for rhetorical weapons instead of genuine interest. It is a neat little exercise and had all sorts of neat rammifications on the field but I hardly expect you to go trudge through that without some inherent interest. Just sayin. Should've said it in the first place.

a cool creature, for your consideration

>>15311806
Well it isn't blue so I can probably pet it and not die, right? My knowledge of anything in the sea is fairly limited partly because I ain't goin anywhere near the abyssal cthulian nightmare

>>15311792
It's a good mental exercise to just talk shit without the filter of any credibility and such, like taking of the suit and relaxing in a robe

Yeah, narcissists, psychopaths and sophists. A full grabbag of them.

I also thought about it some more and here's a very charitable theory.

You see, there's really nothing embarrassing about being a good scientist (or anything around that level of expertise for that matter) and making good work by virtue of hard work while having the IQ of 110 (I don't really subscribe to IQ as a good measurement of anything when you get a sample less than a million people DESU).
It's even more admirable in my book, I have nothing but respect for people that rise above their circumstances without some natural gift or having fortunate upbringing.

On the other hand,

Imagine having a high IQ and not accomplishing anything with it, struggling due to some other circumstances circumventing this advantage (that is if there is any advantage there)

That's psychologically crushing I would assume and can lead to a lot of behaviour we see around here.
Denying anything is real, believing that race makes you superior, having some amazing projects in the garage or on a hard drive just waiting to be unleashed on the world... If only the bastards stopped putting them down

>>15311799
I must confess I skipped the middle section to be intelectually honest.
But I try to at least read the basic findings before going into discussion because otherwise it's just discussing anything with a position that you have decided on from the get go and not being open to changing your mind.
It can work if you're a teacher at school, but this thing here is much closer to an open conference or seminar.

>>15311814
if you aren't a sea star you're probably fine.
This thing is a barnacle relative, by the way. Fascinating how life histories differ in invertebrate taxa.

>>15311816
It is. Crushing, isolating. Pick despairing adjectives. The more "out of bounds" of measurement you are the more crushing it is. For reasons I'd never tell and wouldn't be understood. However, it is also for that reason I would argue you are being grossly over-charitable, as I can't fathom even in my darkest hour falling for any of their bullshit. I was in prime position to, as well, near as I can figure at some points in my life. Each and every time I just worked through the problems and it always comes out that extremists are full of shit from any angle considered.

Then again I don't consider such results as "unrecognized giftedness" however cruelly treated to be some personal failing. Perhaps it would be different in someone who does, perhaps radically so. Maybe that's the difference, and maybe it's all about who you blame. Infuriating as it may be, nobody is really "to blame". You're just stuck with the empty sack of could-have-been and "if anyone had cared". So yeah, I can totally see how that'd motivate a lot of rage if someone skipped some steps and went straight to "convenient scapegoat".
>>15311820
Still, not exaggerating, better than 99% of attempts I see. Just be cautious doing that as sometimes authors can be stupidly sloppy and put important caveats in random places without proper summation at the end like they fucking should.
>>15311821
>if you aren't a sea star you're probably fine.
On the internet nobody knows I'm a sea star. Shhhhhh

>>15311498
Why did you delete the "AI generated picture" post number >>15306769 ?
>>15311561
>Yes, I could have clarified the context with which I meant the analogy better
"Just end up with something looking like one" is fantasy ignorant nonsense. Anything sequenced (again it's physically impossible for there to be anything to sequence after that much time but for arguments sake) would be 100% random slapping your keyboard junk. All bonds have broken 10x over. Does that not register in your mind or are you so desperate to save face you knowingly type nonsense? THere is no logical reason you would say it would look like anything.
"Near total noise" is not an analogy either. It's a "statement of fact" which is wrong.
>No, I do not expect you to accept clarification from anyone if or when it removes your "gotchas".
What gotcha? You so arrogantly claimed I was "completely wrong" and then instantly demonstrated you had no clue what I said with abject insanity. There is no possible way original code could be left over after 75 mil and you're desperately trying to circumvent this fact/mistake you probably just realized you made.
>Which, as noted, is not a meaningful prediction
??? No duh. Your belief system will implode when my prediction comes to fruition
>>15311631
>Given absolutely perfect conditions at low enough temperature? Yeah, it is possible
Ok well for reality there is no such thing as "absolute perfect" so we agree. In your fantasy world it's possible. In the real world it's not. That was easy.
>It does not guarantee it is impossible
Real world criteria does. Your painfully inadequate best attempt still resulted in the embarrassing failure of admitting it's only possible in your fantasy
>You don't know the first shit about the first fuck is the issue
You should stick to posting those idiotic ai Asuka pics instead of regurgitating pieces of of a research because you desperately need to make people think "i am very smart"... only to fail miserably

>>15311835
>In your fantasy world it's possible. In the real world it's not. That was easy.
>>a fallacy of denying the hypothesis is an incorrect reasoning in proving p q by starting with assuming ¬p and proving ¬q. For example: Show that if x is irrational, then x/2 is irrational. A fallacy of denying the hypothesis argument would start with: “Assume that x is rational.
All you did was assume you're right to say you're right. Any toddler can do that. The rest of your post is about as well thought out as one too, so I need not bother further.

>>15311827
I'm glad you "own your shit" so to speak.
Personally before becoming a big fan of history I remember believing that it's inconsolable that untill the invention of gunpowder muskets Roman legions that fought the Gauls under Caesar were probably only surpassed by the Mongols (and Huns maybe) as the most superior fighting force if you consider logistics, discipline, number of troops and other factors.
How could everything stay so static when everything around me is changing so rapidly right now.
Now after a few 20th century tier situations that spell
"Fuck your aspirations, your family and close ones are all a resource in our tribal chessgame of nation states, so offer your expertise to further our goals whether you agree with them or not and be rewarded (maybe) or leave our institutions and fend for yourself in this chaos" I realise that a lot of people brilliant or not were trapped by circumstances.
Socrates, Archimedes, Aristotle, Coppernicus, Lamark, Darwin (to some extent), Haber, Freud, Einstein, Vavilov, Oppenheimer, Korolev, Sacharov and others constantly under pressure from the powers that be and not immune to the tides of history sweeping them away.
How many people like that are forgotten by most or even completely?

>>15311835
Didn't delete, got banned for 24 h.
Are you the same person that believes that I'm a 4chan administration plant?

>>15311868
Wow the jannies actually did their job for once.

>>15311821
Indeed.
Velvet worms are some of my favourites.
Haven't changed much since the Dinasaur times and still pretty good at surviving in their habitat. Too bad humans destroy it to make farms that will deplete the soil on a couple years

>>15304037
This is too soon...too soon, those damn africans
Fuck!

>>15312053
You could as easily blame colonialism. Africans lived on the continent for thousands of years but this kind of extinction extinction became a problem only in the 20th century

>>15311899
https://youtu.be/fjWPpnrJUxk

>>15310399
Yes, but none of us are knowledgeable enough to say anything meaningful about it.

>>15311899
I want to see him wiggle along why no gif

>>15312094
>but this kind of extinction extinction became a problem only in the 20th century
and you know that because there is no recorded history of the previous eras.
>blame whitey, purely out of racial hatred
the african population boom, which has doubled the continent's population ever 25 years going back to 1900, is all the result of whites shipping endless supplies of free food and medicine to africans. those damned whites are so evil.
whats being jewish like? you wish you were white, but you never will be, is that frustrating?

>>15312240
>and you know that because there is no recorded history of the previous eras.
NTA. Also lol you surely aren't serious. What, we can know nothing except by direct written claim to eyewitness?

>>15312234
Wiggling and hunting:
https://youtu.be/fjWPpnrJUxk

>>15312297
I hate everything about this but also hehe he spit

>>15312240
...
You forgot the part about the transatlantic slave trade and resource extraction that continues to this day. Africa is the new China on the labour front
>>15312234
There
>>15312202
I had the fortune to attend one of his presentations a few years back and did write a little essay on it (thought I didn't finish and turn it in, too many other things were going on).
So I can try, and there are the paper links from anon above so you can get an idea

>>15312094
The Australian aborigines killed several kinds of megafauna and desertified much of the continent by setting forest fires before anyone else even knew Australia existed. Noble savage myths are just that, myths.

>>15312316
I was talking specifically about Africa and current African civilizations of the last 10000 or so years.
Prehistoric humans definitely murked a lot of things (including every other species of hominid, or at least absorbed then into themselves) as they are the classic example of an invasive species.

>>15312316
Wow, really? Fell for the /pol/ boomer memes?

>>15312324
There've been various proposed hypotheses are various times with respect to large scale fires in the holoscene or "Late Pleistocene". Desertification in australia being blamed on the aborigines is a new one, well, rather an incredibly racist old one and I say that for its complete lack of evidence and motivated reasoning from the time. Seeing fire brush clearing methods during australia's colonization by the British and whatnot. Can't recall the name of some of the original sources on that I'd have to go dig them up someplace. You had similar claims in early anthropology when evidence of large fires in north america surfaced, but of course that's bullshit since large fires occur so much and so often most forests in north america evolved for exactly that. Various works on analyzing the pleistocene temperature changes and cooling from late pleistocene to early holocene and whatnot.

Sort of a hobby of mind because deep time history is just fascinating to me.

>>15312330
It's paleontology, anon. I know you don't like to hear things that disagree with your worldview but sometimes you have to.

>>15312324
Here, took me a bit to remember the right jargon for this field as this one is purely a kind of "outside looking in" hobby for me https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1822035117

There are a lot of interesting effects during glaciation and interglacial cycles with incredibly dry climates that result and large scale wildfires at various times. Naturally it isn't constant over geographic location as interglacial periods shift weather patterns quite a lot, but over the whole of the pleistocene these cycles appear to have been very consistent. There are just numerous articles on various locations and regions, that one is from China there are many more on the americas and so on.

Though for the holocene and late pleistocene megafauna extinction and grassland growth definitely caused problems galore https://www.newscientist.com/article/2299042-megafauna-extinctions-led-to-more-grassland-fires-worldwide/

>>15312350
>It's paleontology, anon. I know you don't like to hear things that disagree with your worldview but sometimes you have to.
I don't know why you idiots always assume everyone is as ignorant as you are but you write that in the middle of my talking about my fascination with deep time history and environmental reconstructions holy shit that's funny. You're full of shit like racists always are.

>>15312358
Reading your posts is a chore because of how condescending you are in your ignorance and I try to do it as little as possible.

>>15312362
One of us cites and discusses research even for his hobbies the other one pulls shit out his ass. You gotta work on your game kid you suck at this.

>>15312363
I can't talk to someone who lacks the bare minimum qualifications to google the subject. You should know, at a minimum, that countless piles of bones and eggs have been found with toolmarks and scorching on them from butchery and cooking, and that the human cause of megafauna extinction is the prevailing theory in the modern day.

Want some papers? You could have found these immediately if you cared about the subject.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527880/
https://www.nature.com/articles/454835a
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10496

Here's something more general if that's your speed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hunters-killed-off-big-animals-australia/

>>15311821
>This thing is a barnacle relative, by the way. Fascinating how life histories differ in invertebrate taxa.
by the way if you know anything about that feel free to add. I'm sort of pissing into the wind here and sidetracking to late epoch paleontology.
>>15309583
And I didn't forget about you I just don't know enough about the topic. I'm reading through some of it to pass the time now and it certainly is interesting. Thanks for this btw
>>15312386
You... do realize humans are implicated worldwide in megafuana extinctions, right? Also how none of those links relate to your claim of association with desertification BY wildfires allegedly caused by aborigines? Literally nothing you just linked has anything to do with your claim about wildfires >>15312316 and the only thing you did not get entirely wrong is megafauna implications that apply to EVERY geographic region >>15312355

But no apparently I'm the one who can't google lol holy shit

>>15312330
>>15312324
>>15312386
Since the racist toddler can't even bother citing relevant sources here's the relevant research from the modern era with proper modern evidence gathering, climate modeling, etc. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222296379_Late_Quaternary_fire_regimes_in_Australia

If anyon eactually cares you can follow the citations from there given there's tons of other reconstruction work by many other scientists. This paper alone has 275 citations from many related works.

But in general such works echo what I already generally knew about wildfires and the severe dryness of the early holocene. >>15312355 >>15312345
Not surprising in the least that population growth, then, does not correspond with such fires or any other lines of evidence one would expect to find empirically.

>>15312409
>>15312386
>I can't talk to someone who lacks the bare minimum qualifications
>>15312350
>I know you don't like to hear things that disagree with your worldview but sometimes you have to.
>>15312362
>Reading your posts is a chore because of how condescending you are in your ignorance and I try to do it as little as possible.

So what have we learned about falling for /pol/ boomer memes and acting like a little brat?

>>15304652
they cause harm

>>15312430
you're all just a bunch of weak disgusting cowards aren't you?

>>15304718
nta, biologist should stick to their research and not politics or philosophy, they have no say.

>>15312433
lets see how you act when you get your guts ripped from you alive.

>>15312441
it's why we evolved hands and brains to arm ourselves against them

what, do you not use the stove either?

fuck off

>>15312445
what the fuck are you talking about?
what does that have to do with an animal getting their guts ripped by a tigers teeth?

>>15312449
can't connect basic implications

im not going to spell it out for you dumbshit

>>15312451
you dumb nigger its not about us. obviously humans are rarely harmed by such situations,
im talking about the animals, they cause pain to other non human animals.

>>15312355
>Wildfire can influence climate directly and indirectly, but little is known about the relationships between wildfire and climate during the Quaternary,
Interesting, does that suggest that one of the ways we can influence climate change is to control forest fires? They are nessesary for several different species of animals and plants to complete their life cycle, but I feel like roping this course into climate change fight might be much more beneficial than other endeavours
>In the past decade an additional effect of wildfire on climate has been recognized; that is, the fires supply soluble, bioavailable iron to the oceans, in addition to other micronutrients such as organic N and P (9, 10), possibly promoting the growth of marine phytoplankton and affecting the concentration of atmospheric CO2 (11, 12). However, this effect has never been considered in the context of paleowildfire.
This if very interesting too. This cycle must have been established around Carboniferous when the Non-seed-bearing plants dominated the land

>>15306451
same goes for if africa wants to execute all of their faggots, which they're on their way to doing.
marin ssempa is the hitler who will cleanse africa

>>15312529
>The expansion of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets during glacial periods was synchronous with increases in both dust production and soot emissions from high-intensity wildfires (Fig. 2 C–G). Taken together, these relationships imply that ice-volume-modulated aridity not only affected the production of desert dust, but also the occurrence of high-intensity fires.
>In terms of significance, the fertilization of the oceans by iron was suggested to account for no more than half the observed glacial atmospheric CO2 drawdown (47–51). In addition to the stimulating effects of the iron inputs from dust and biomass burning proposed here, the enhanced glacial marine productivity also may have been a response to the inputs of nutrients from upwelling, mixing (40, 52), and volcanic eruptions (53, 54).
>Although the mechanisms influencing the glacial atmospheric CO2 are complex (40, 49) and not fully understood, our study raises the intriguing possibility that wildfire contributed to Quaternary climate change through its involvement in marine biogeochemical cycles. Our 2.6-My record of soot and char from the CLP provides insights into fires in relation to environmental change in central Asia, and the results may serve as a basis for further investigations into the linkages between wildfire and climate change.

The inevitable effect that biosphere made on the processes that produced the ice age has never occurred to me, but seems obvious now.

The materials and methods are beyond my ability to judge their validity at a first glance, so I'll assume they did their homework on this

>>15312355
>However, Karp didn’t find a strong link between the loss of browsers – tree feeders – and fire activity in woody regions.

“The relation between extinctions and changes in fire activity was only really strong if you looked at grazer extinctions, so herbivores that eat grass,” she says.
Huh, from the cursory glance California and Australia are the regions most succeptible to forest fires.
Were bison prevalent in the California untill we (Europeans and indigenous peoples together) almost wiped them out? And Australia is just the case study on the effect of introducing species to fragile ecosystems

>>15312529
>Interesting, does that suggest that one of the ways we can influence climate change is to control forest fires? They are nessesary for several different species of animals and plants to complete their life cycle, but I feel like roping this course into climate change fight might be much more beneficial than other endeavours
Oh, no, definitely not to that extent on some short scale of time as would matter for our current anthropogenic climate problems to be clear. What that refers to ultimately would be biological sequestration processes, "carbon sinks"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
The neat part is considering the oldest and most extreme case with trees prior to the evolution of fungi to decompose their cellulose during the carboniferous-permian. Or so that was the idea. Keep in mind again this is only my hobby because I'm addicted to the fun of the factoids so I cannot really say if that old idea is still true, as some research argues it is not https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517943113
>>15312539
Not just that way but there's also the other causation with respect to changes and shifts in geographic climate and stability. We know a lot more about climate during late hominid evolution now than ever before and it's very fascinating as it really helps understand why tree monkeys would increasingly need to walk, and then run, and then develop such ridiculously efficient long-distance supporting cardiovascular system. You can get now why I love this sort of thing as a hobby. It's like an endless spelunking adventure, a mystery book of mysteries that never run out. The best kind of adventure

>>15312389
You're welcome with the Moroz stuff, very interesting.
>>15312409
I'll check it out a bit later on my own
>>15312434
Yeah, right. When government beurocracy and/or corporate dictates your funding, work regulations and other things the scientific community must provide feedback on the subject.
We always say we must be apolitical and impartial, but I feel like the conservation of species is one of the issues that experts can't be quiet about. We'll be out of jobs if the rate at which we send species to the past tense doesn't slow down significantly.

Also, ever hear about open letters with signatures from prominent scientists and other notable figures. Sometimes that kind of thing can move political tides significantly.

>>15312547
But can't we produce artificial carbon sinks?
It would be like a big artificial lake with the special type of one-cellelled plants or photosynthetic bacteria that absorb a lot of carbon and then can be harvested. To be able to make it self sustainable as much as possible it's important to know that you would need to substitute this iron introduction and the other factors

>>15312547
>https://en.wikipedia.org
100% lies and propaganda

>>15312547
Yeah, I remember reading that the trees just slowly went away in the Eastern Africa where our ancestors lived and so they became nomadic walkers

>>15312544
There's all kinds of research with respect to estimating population density and range of herbivores, but while there are varying opinions as to degree of causation there's not a consensus last I knew. e.g. some will literally blame humans for it all, very few now I think, others a combination of factors and unsurprisingly "a rich plurality of bad luck" is usually the right answer.

So climate shifts and instability, comparatively rapid and re-freezings on a geological or biological timescale, and you get species driven into higher latitudes only to suffer massive losses as suddenly summers don't return for a couple years in a row followed by excessive warming again. Very few species can rebound that fast in any event, and while it is obvious humans would have ended up needing more sources of food to survive it is equally obvious that such massive land losses for herbivore ranges caused by such rapid excess cold shocks would kill the majority of their respective populations.

TONS of research from every angle on this sort of thing. Climate instability kills off a lot of herbivores, warms, grasslands develop and populations are definitely not able to rebound that fast anyway. Lots of fires. You see similar cyclical trends throughout the whole of the pleistocene as well, so the whole of the quaternary period.

Just to give some idea of just how unstable the climate has been the past 2.5 million years check the overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
It's nuts compared to prior epochs. It has been insanely cold only to warm then freeze to insanely cold levels again. Repeatedly. On levels most life that can't travel vast distances would not be able to survive. Probably responsible for the massive spread and prevalence of such vast-ranging herbivores and carnivores as well, as each successive cycling means you can move to where there isn't competition anymore. While periodic mass dieoffs would occur due to habitat constriction.

>>15312560
Here's a test for your claim
Try to find propaganda and lies in this page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot

>>15312558
>But can't we produce artificial carbon sinks?
That is not something I have relevant knowledge to answer. I'd know less about that than a wikipedia article. No clue how viable that would be.

While I do have far ranging interests compared to most I am by no means the batman of everything. I am utterly clueless on that question lol

>im gooona save the world!!!
>just like the superheros in muh marvel comix mooooovies
>once i'm a big hero everyone will know how important i really am, then i'll get the kind of respect i know i deserve

>>15312563
Hmm, interesting. Too bad we and other species evolved to feel best in this short-lived climate then. The tropical species are fine probably, but polar bears are already on their way to assimilate with their cousins

>>15312575
I'd not be surprised at all if such and such admixture typifies biological evolution throughout the Quaternary. After all you ALSO see the effects of that periodic stabilization followed by "hell frozen over" in recent glacial maximums with respect to hominid evolution and habitat range of H. Erectus over ~2 million years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Seriously if I was independently wealthy or could've made a living on it I would've become a paleontologist or something in paleobiology. Words cannot convey how much I just fuckin enjoy this goddamn field but I probably wouldn't as much having to work in it given present conditions.

>>15312566
Thanks for intelectual honestty. I'm kinda clueless on this and many other things (math and physics especially) too.
We do have tall vertical greenhouses and do farm one-cellelled plants though, I know that. Combining them can be interesting

>>15312580
How old are you (no need to give full answer, just 20s or 30s would suffice)
You can always get to it at some later point in life when kids and stuff can take care of itself of your facination is still there at that point

>>15312581
>Thanks for intelectual honestty. I'm kinda clueless on this and many other things (math and physics especially) too.
Well yeah, it's a lot harder to think of me as humble because of this environment and the kinds of topics that arise, as well as their relative simplicity to debunk or properly explain. Seriously most of what I end up needing to write DOESN'T even rise to the level of "wikipedia article" with respect to boomer-meme lies.
I'm not totally clueless on math or physics given what I do professionally and my main interests, but that doesn't really help answer broad hypotheticals like that pertaining to economy, scale, feasibility, let alone complex climate modeling or chaotic systems. I know enough to know how little I know and how much learning would be needed to figure it out, that is if I were to try independently deriving estimates separate from any given research publication. Fuck that noise those academics can do that they get paid for it lol
>>15312587
Early 40s now. But sadly while I will certainly be able to retire life only lets you become independently wealthy "enough" with immense luck and good fortune of being born to the right parents. But depending on how shit goes once I retire I might do it for fucking free.

>>15312580
doubtless that you're wrong about a lot of things

>>15312621
You again...

>>15312621
I haven't been wrong about how stupid it is to think circumstantially simplifying language for better communication somehow implies anything let alone anything negative for IQ (:

Still butthurt I see.

>>15312606
I certainly root for you.
We discussed it somewhere up there or in the previous thread, but scientific research Is once again becoming available to just about anyone educated and motivated enough to try. Cheap PCR kits the size of a good book, other kits that you can use and then send into the lab for analysis for a manageable fee, open access to articles, someone mentioned that in the US government funded research must become open to the public in 2026.
Obviously there are limitations on travel and access to precious specimens, but there is plenty of work that can be done with the information that professionals get from them.

climate change is going to cause so much suffering since life tends to thrive in warmer temperatures.

>>15312644
Are you a necromancer?

>>15304033
I can think of some African animals that should be allowed to go extinct.

>>15312573
the soience power fantasy

>>15312673
Go on

>>15312673
I think the entire species from south to north should go.

>>15312696
whites first of course.

>>15304642
You can take his images and train a model to recognize them. There are thousands of guides on how to do this in Python.
Start off by auto hiding posts with only very high confidence images, and flag the rest for manual review before cementing them in the data set. In a while you'll be able to filter the majority of his posts using the Lab Coat Asuka in the shitty AI style - the crux being you'll also filter retards reposting the images (probably a good thing though).

>>15312709

>>15309583
>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2021.669087/full
As a clarification for anyone happening by this is discussing neurons as a functional category, not a genetic one in any particular or any given set of species.
I do find it more and more interesting from various generalizable mechanisms and models of evolution, even though as stated I lack the relevant expertise to speak on particulars. Still reading through relevant bits and explanations and other literature.

My general impression is that it seems to make sense to be multi-lineage as a matter of symbiosis preceding forms we'd consider more complex life. Simply as a matter of initial symbiosis, later convergence from through episodic and gradual selective pressure, than to somehow conceive of an alternative where the system somehow proliferates first from a shared whole unit. As at some point, and this is what I mean about thinking in generalizable terms, one must come to the realization that ending up with that some notion for every single type of complex cell would lead to absurdity very quickly. Cooperation and symbiosis is the only way to make sense of any of it so far as concerns early eukaryota and later larger cooperation.

The competitive exclusion principle of ecological niches applies here and best explains long shared cellular ancestry leading to universal common ancestors. My only problem here, and what I think about the work of Moroz so far, is the exclusion principle of the relevant ecological niche may in fact render his extension of the idea into supposing whole CNS's devised of such prototypical competing "early neurons". Maybe this is splitting hairs. I think that by the time larger conglomerates of cells would've come together to benefit from secretionary signaling the exclusion principle in the ecological niche would've already long taken place.

I tried to see if moroz's paper contained note on the exclusion principle but I'm not having luck yet.

>>15312890
>>15309583
In effect my concern raised is such that whether or not his notion ends up being true seems to depend on whether or not the secretionary cells as well formed unto themselves a kind of common ancestor.

So simply put in this case I think it far more plausible the reason for subsequent explosion of more complex life containing central nervous systems arose from the fact such a common ancestor of coordinated signaling symbiosis, adapting for that purpose, existed in the fist place. It seems to me, and it is possible I got him entirely wrong somehow due to unfamiliarity, he is suggesting early life and use of such systems were instead of multiple lineages even then rather than before then as I think makes sense.

We are going to genetically modify humans to express extreme female biased sexual size dimorphism, making men small and super athletic and women tall and super fecund, who gestate litters of babies each pregnancy.

>>15312907
Hello anon, I was wondering when you would show up

>>15312899
I believe he talked about the fact that the ocean environment and a mode of existence in this environment in which the creatures that have the independent nervous systems unlike ours operate is very static and so it does the job, but if you would want to do more complex stuff you would need our type.
So for a rather passive sponge- jellyfish style of life all of this diversity of approaches is possible, but more complex niches in the ecosystem demand the CNS at least like that of the flat oceanic worms
So it's a question of selective pressure. The novel creatures with the proto CNS of the diffusory type that we recognise to start in hydras didn't realy give too much of the advancement in adaptability to creatures that didn't need to process a lot of sencory information... Or something like that

>>15313207
I can't see how to reconcile that with common ancestry unless he's implying offshoot ancestries that've gone extinct and are not in evidence. Is that what he means? Otherwise how exactly does it occur such that eumetazoa share common ancestry yet would have entirely differently origined neurons? Since to me that seems to violate scientific simplicity without some very convincing evidence, and even as a hypothesis would require some real fuckin good reasoning for it.

>>15313218
To be honest, fuck if I know.

But if I had to infer from his general line of thinking, he started off with theories and then began working in a floating lab in the ocean and introducing a novel type of on board research right then and there. I gather that he sequenced them and found reason to believe in such common ancestry from that.
Things in biology are squishy and especially at that level prone to horizontal exchange
What to say that a virus introduced a way for different origin cells to suddenly *share notes"
A virus enabled mammalian type of reproduction as far as I remember, so an aromophosys by the way of horizontal exchange is possible

>>15313250
Well yes when we're talking horizontal exchange, but that's what I'm not sure about. As I said originally, yeah sure fine makes sense for things prior to the development of their function "as neurons" and prior to incorporation together with other organisms to form something like eumetazoa. Whether chemical signaling or otherwise.

I'm just saying I don't quite understand whether that is where it ends or whether he means to imply the further thing that makes no sense. I shall have to dig deeper.

If it really is just about the stage of life where you'd see horizontal exchange then the whole thing seems like one colossal "no duh"

>>15304033
>be allowed
Humans when AI asks itself this about humans.

>>15312727
can you stop posting this autistic anime shit.
holy fuck do i hate fags that don't tuck their autism away.

>>15313787
>fags that don't tuck their autism away.
kek, funny choice of words.

>>15313787
I thought this was a board for nerds, beep boop.
Do nerds not like anime, boop beep?

>>15313262
Well, the thing that blew me away was that there are creatures that have a parallel nervous systems, and not just one, but several
I was listening to him in 2018 or 2019 and he definitely showed this pic, so I assume he based his presentation on this paper
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0041

>>15312907
How's progress on your project, anon? Got any leads?

>>15304740
What about the Habenula?
Last time I encountered it it was mostly involved with the study of addiction to alcohol and cigarettes plus testing aversive behaviour in mice

>>15311459
Whit do you mean by that? Could you elaborate?

>>15312316
>desertified much of the continent by setting forest fires
No that doesn't cause desertification. that only causes grasslands to grow instead. Desertification only occurred due to severe climate shifts due to changes in the ocean currents. The Sahara was also green in the past prior to cliamte shifts.

>>15314704
Agreed

test post

>>15314868
What?
Are you a boy?

>>15312433
OwO

Fuck it
Let's discuss the difference between crustaceans and insects. Got the idea from another thread, they were talking about eating them but then showing some serious misconceptions about the nature of the two things
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464620305405?via%3Dihub

>>15316445
>Insects are the largest class of Arthropods, and their consumption was happening throughout the whole history of humankind. Eating cicadas as a delicacy in Ancient Greece, the larvae of longhorn beetle in the city of Rome or locusts and grasshoppers in Ethiopia has been well documented and has reached the present time (van Huis et al., 2013). However, only a few insect species such as silkworm and honey bee were domesticated (Lecocq, 2018). In countries with lower monetary income, insects remained a part of a diet and even considered as a delicacy, for example, palm weevil

>Crustaceans (shrimps, prawns, crabs, lobsters, krill) are consumed and farmed worldwide with more than 300 species of shrimps that are of economic interest (Gillett, 2008). Shrimp farming has begun with natural migration of wild shrimps into tidal impoundments forming incidental crops of shrimps in Asia centuries ago. During the 1970s technologies of industrial shrimp farming started to develop, focusing for instance on shrimp nutrition (Chamberlain, 2012). Once considered as acceptable food, shrimps have long become a delicacy and a highly desired source of proteins.

>>15316458
>Insects were extensively studied as a source of bioactive compounds for medicine (Costa-Neto, 2005), but little is known about their additional functional potential when consumed as food. On the contrary, shrimps are well studied as a source of nutrients, but the added-value potential of shrimp by-products was the main interest of recent studies.

>Insects are generally consumed as whole, but in some cases wings and legs for instance from locusts, are removed in order to lower chitin content and to prevent sticking in the throat if an insect is eaten entirely. On an industrial level, insects are processed into insect powder, protein-enriched and fiber-enriched fractions, and fat. Separation of pure muscle fractions from insects by peeling, that is feasible for shrimps, is hardly possible on the large-scale processing nowadays. Moreover, peeling is more relevant for adult insect species with well developed exoskeleton, for instance locusts, than to soft larvae of yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) or pupae of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens). The smaller size of insects also hardens its peeling in comparison to shrimps.

>>15316445
>>15316458
>crustaceans were once the unsellable last resort of poor fishermen to feed their families (usually because all the money they brought in went towards either boat repairs or booze)
>curious people also tried them once in a while and found that they're actually delicious
>they've become a sought after food item even in places they weren't traditionally eaten
vs
>insects are the unsellable last resort of poor subsistence farmers to feed their families because they don't bring in any money at all
>curious people also try them once in a while and find they're fucking disgusting
>only moneyed interests who want to invent a market for the world's cheapest protein try to force the world to eat bugs

>>15316464
Insects and shrimps have high protein content ranging between 7–48 and 13–27g/100g fresh weight, respectively.

>In general, the amino acid composition of insects and shrimps meet requirements for the human diet and comparable to animal proteins

>Generally, insects have higher fat content ranging from 2 to 62% (Williams, Williams, Kirabo, Chester, & Peterson, 2016), comparing to shrimps that contain around 1% of fat (Dayal et al., 2013). In general, insect fatty acid profile is similar to that of vegetable oils and animal fats (Tzompa-Sosa & Fogliano, 2017) and both insects and shrimps are rich in unsaturated fatty acids.

>>15316471
Some mealworms were pretty good
I never tried them, but imagine that ant honeypots are pretty good
Some shrimps and crayfish I ate was pretty bad sometimes

It's the matter of cooking it right, you know

>>15316477
Yea shrimp are kind of tasteless and shitty actually, but I always thought I felt that way because I've been spoiled by fresh atlantic lobster my whole life. Also I think you need to get the dirt out of crayfish or they're nasty as hell.
>It's the matter of cooking it right
I don't like this argument. You can cover up the bad taste of just about anything by putting in to some heavily spiced burning hot curry, that doesn't mean it's not bad.

>>15316473
>Minerals are essential constituents of insects and shrimps, and the content of all minerals largely varies between species. A comprehensive analysis by Rumpold and Schlüter (2013) demonstrated that edible insects are generally low in calcium (0.04–2010mg/100g based on dry matter), potassium (0.20–3259mg/100g based on dry matter), and do not fulfill the requirements for the daily uptake of these minerals for adults. Low potassium content was characteristic for shrimps as well, but shrimps were reported as a good source of calcium (the daily value of foods, <10% and 10–25%, respectively)

>Crickets and locusts are rich in magnesium (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013), which is similar to the dominance of magnesium in black tiger (Penaeus monodon) and white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) meat (Sriket, Benjakul, Visessanguan, & Kijroongrojana, 2007). Cricket powder is rich in copper, manganese and zinc (2.33–4.51, 4.1–12.5, and 12.8–21.8mg/100g of dry matter, respectively) (Montowska, Kowalczewski, Rybicka, & Fornal, 2019). Latunde-Dada et al. demonstrated, that cricket (Gryllus bimaculatus) and sirloin beef had higher levels of iron, calcium and manganese than a grasshopper (Sphenarium purpurascens), mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) and buffalo worms (Alphitobius diaperinus) and the mentioned insects exhibited a higher amount of chemically available calcium, copper, magnesium, manganese and zinc than beef (Latunde-Dada, Yang, & Vera Aviles, 2016). In contrast, deep-water rose shrimp meat had a low content of iron and zinc (66.20 and 36.74mg/kg, respectively) (Cankirilig & Berik, 2017).

>>15316487
Mealworms I ate were on a fast for like a week to remove the stuff from their gastrointestinal tract, then frozen and roasted with basic spices
I don't see any real masking going on there, I eat chicken thats was prepared essentially the same.

>>15316496

>Little is known about vitamins of edible insects
>The exoskeleton of many Arthropods, including insects and crustaceans consists of chitin, a long-chain polymer of N-acetylglucosamine. Chitin contains 90.6% of total dietary fiber (Maezaki, Yamazaki, Mizuochi, & Tsuji, 1993) and it can be defined as a functional food component providing special benefits to food, for instance contributing to colonic health, coronary artery health, and cholesterol reduction amongst many others (Prosky, 2000).
Now that's interesting to know
>Chitin can be eliminated from insects during the production of food ingredients through a number of extraction procedures. Unlike insects, shrimps are easier peeled and pure shrimp meat is consumed, that eliminates the consumption of chitin. In its turn, shrimp waste (exoskeleton and heads) is a valuable source of chitin, that can be consequently deacetylated into chitosan. Health-promoting benefits of dietary chitosan were previously discussed in literature (Inanli et al., 2020, Shahidi et al., 1999). It should be mentioned, that chitosan can be also produced from chitin of whole insects or chitin-enriched fractions of processed insects.
Never heard of chitostan before, need to check it out

>>15316471
I don't think there's any serious endeavor to advance the "cause" of some market for insects. The media is driven wholly by clickbait and it always was, whether publishing outrageous claims of "modern day sodom and gomorrah" or otherwise. You can find just about any/every idea in published literature from any angle, and there are all manner of insane/absurd/infeasible proposals represented in them.

It definitely feels to me like one of those "doomed to repeat history for failing to learn from it" things. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal even though that is satire it kind of fits the bill. As nothing drives more outrage clicks and sharing than something that common sense says ought be satire yet is taken seriously. Even so this satire served a similar purpose, to create the same outrage for attention on a real problem. People aren't fighting against some monolith or conspiracy or "new normal". They're playing right into the hands of the propagandists, and who propagandize outrage to profit from doing so. Worse, activists who are smart enough to know the media will do that can easily manufacture such stories and they will get "some outcome" in the direction they want as a result. After all, you can just settle for something comparatively sensible to eating bugs or living in one-man "pods", right? Straight out of every single persuasive/manipulation sales tactic.

>>15316515
>Evaluation of the safety of insects and shrimps as a food source is a key factor surrounding their consumption and farming. Insects and shrimps accumulate toxic materials from the environment they are farmed in. For instance, insect collection from the wild not only negatively affects biodiversity but also increases the risk of contamination with pesticides and heavy metals (van Huis et al., 2013). As an alternative to wild harvesting, the recent development of rearing systems with a control environment and diet significantly lower the possible contamination.

>Another important safety aspect is the presence of toxic and allergic substances. There is still a limited number of studies on the possible toxicity of insects through oral administration. Gao et al. reviewed 34 edible insects in China and demonstrated that most of the studied insects are non-toxic (Gao, Wang, Xu, Shi, & Xiong, 2018).

>>15316526
>Crustaceans are well known to cause an allergic reaction (Ruethers et al., 2018), that is also relevant to insect species. It has been recently shown that the cricket allergen, namely tropomyosin, may induce an allergic reaction in individuals with allergy to crustacean, that should be taken into account before insect consumption (Kamemura et al., 2019). However, insect processing by enzymatic and thermal approaches can reduce the risk of cross-reactivity and allergenicity in patients allergic to crustaceans and house dust mite (Linnemann et al., 2019). Moreover, the increase of the degree of hydrolysis to 60–85% decreased IgE reactivity to tropomyosin, as it has been demonstrated for crickets (Hall et al., 2018). Boiling, roasting, and steaming of shrimps were reported to not be sufficient to lower tropomyosin concentrations (Usui et al., 2015), but high-intensity ultrasound at 50°C showed the reduction in allergenicity of shrimps (Zhenxing, Caolimin, & Jamil, 2006). Future studies should focus on the impact of both shrimp and insect to the oral consumption in regards to the allergenic and toxic reaction to the consumers.

That sounds great, more people having access to diverse types of food

>>15316531
>Given the fact that insects can be consumed whole or as insect powder that contains chitin, the digestibility of chitin is an important factor to consider for the elimination of possible adverse health consequences. It has been shown, that humans have enzymes with chitinolytic activities, namely chitotriosidase (Chit1) and acidic mammalian chitinase (AMCase) (Ohno et al., 2013). However, their activity might be very low for those who do not consume food containing chitin regularly (Paoletti, Norberto, Damini, & Musumeci, 2007).

Ok, this right here is crucial for me. Of we have enzymes for processing the food, it means we are evolutionarily adapted to it and there is no biological reason to remove it from our diet

>>15316536
>Based on the foregoing, insects and shrimps can be classified as a good, and at some extent unexplored, source of nutrients and bioactive compounds applicable for a wide range of functional food ingredients and food supplements. Upon their characteristics, they can be specifically utilized as a functional food component for a specific purpose. Moreover, the potential of additional health-promoting properties of insects and shrimps can be altered through the processing and formulation of value-added products, that should be taken into account and tailor-made for a specific material.

Pretreatment is required for insects and shrimps derived materials in order to decrease microbial load and provide safety, but conventional treatments can cause negative side effects affecting the activity of functional components.

>>15316541
>Besides meat, shrimp by-products were reported to have the potential for the development of new ingredients and products such as flour, biscuits, soup, pastry (Fernandes et al., 2013, Gonçalves and dos Santos Junior, 2019). Similarly, insects can be used for the fortification of pasta, protein bars, powdered peanut butter, crackers, biscuits, tortillas, burgers, bread, granola bars, sauces, ravioli (Melgar-Lalanne, Hernández-Álvarez, & Salinas-Castro, 2019). However, further upscaling of its production is still required for making these insect derived foods commercially viable.

>>15316520
/sci/ itself seems to be suffering from the same clickbait tactics, unfortunately. It Is interesting to note that people are willing to go that far for no financial or any other tangible gain.
I guess they try to practice their "social engineering"

>>15304033
I am a mathchad interested in bilogy. Do you guys have any less known diseases or problems whose cause is not well understood, because meme diseases like diabetes and autism already have a zillion people looking into them.

>>15316520
I'm well aware that the media survives, and always has, by posting the most inflammatory things to draw eyeballs. Basically advanced shitposting.
A Modest Proposal doesn't really have anything to do with that, though. Swift was mocking the then current trend of upper class English people proposing solutions to the Irish problem that were increasingly detached from the reality of human suffering.
And neither of those things mean that there isn't a real grift based around pretending the solution to 'climate change' (as if climate stasis has ever been a thing or would even be desirable) is something they can invest in and/or sell, and/or banning something competing with that. It has really resulted in countless billions of dollars changing hands and it has really resulted in many countries passing legislation preventing 0 emission nuclear power plants from being built in the name of reducing emissions. Real people really believe cows fucking farting and burping is destroying the world, and those real people can really vote.

>>15316564
This. Ignoring the immense industry built up around fraudulent solutions to a problem of dubious validity means never understanding the situation.

>>15316558
Me personally or just as a diseases that occur in population?
Are specifically interested in genetic or otherwise?
Psychological or otherwise?

Probably stupid idea, but ever wach House, M.D.? Their whole premise is weird diseases.

>>15316564
I would expand this ignorance to the politicians as well. Maybe it's willful ignorance, but it seems they somehow manage to convince themselves too

>>15316591
Haha yeah, the politicians are being tricked too, it's uh.. willful ignorance haha

>>15316558
Try Alzheimer's
That's been kind of "fun" lately

>>15316597
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that I think some of them actually practice doublethink
It's important to distinguish straight up malicious actors from those that are so wrapped up in the way system works that shit nobody actually wants is inevitable.
The Guns of August is a good example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August

>>15316564
>A Modest Proposal doesn't really have anything to do with that, though.
I explained how it does,
>>15316520
>>even though that is satire it kind of fits the bill. As nothing drives more outrage clicks and sharing than something that common sense says ought be satire yet is taken seriously. Even so this satire served a similar purpose, to create the same outrage for attention on a real problem.
>>15316564
>Swift was mocking the then current trend of upper class English people proposing solutions to the Irish problem that were increasingly detached from the reality of human suffering.
Yet the praxis is the same as is the result. Attention, outrage, and subsequent circulation, regardless of means and nonetheless "clickbait". Almost like I wrote an entire paragraph framing it and removing its immediate context for a broader point. But no I suppose I just didn't even read anything about it or know what I'm talking about. That's a totally honest way to approach conversation. Next time try to think before shoving both feet in your mouth and lecturing someone on something you completely failed to understand.
>>Real people really believe cows fucking farting and burping is destroying the world, and those real people can really vote.
Somehow given your self evident lack of honesty in approaching what was written I am not surprised you think so. Equally not surprised you've chosen to miss the entire point to grind that axe.

@15316613
I'm just going to pick the charitable option and assume you're out hunting for (you)s. Good day, shitposter.

>>15316581
All kinds of markers in addition to genetics might be good to analyse. I think any diseases which are common in the population but don't receive that much attention from research would be good. Also, are the diseases in House MD even real?
>>15316598
Good suggestion! Thanks.

>>15316613
Did someone fuck you in the ass a little too hard last night? Why do you act like everyone is your enemy the second they mildly disagree with you?

>>15316615
>I'm just going to pick the charitable option and assume you're out hunting for (you)s. Good day, shitposter.
Yeah because it's totally impossible you completely missed the point and acted like an ass as a result. I sense me some narcissism.
>>15316553
So the broader problem is hardly something where one need financial gain. As this person has demonstrated, pure narrow minded egoism and partizan ideology are all that is required. They'll do it for free. Meanwhile it's the intermediary people who really profit from such poisoning of the wells.

>>15316621
>Why do you act like everyone is your enemy the second they mildly disagree with you?
Beginning by assuming someone is a total idiot, and as a result completely missing the point, is not "mild disagreement".

>>15316613
>>15316623
>>15316625
verification not required

>>15307023
Cute thigh, post feet.

I love cats but Cheetahs have always seemed a bit too retarded to live.
That said, I think genetic samples should be stored in multiple locations (probably including space, just to ensure muslims don't dump out the blood so they can sell the glass vials (see: the looting of afghani seed banks in 2002) so that we (by which I mean our AI masters) can populate our ring habitats with exotic animals (the most exotic of which being ourselves, their lovable human pets).

>the climate changing has been happening since the day the earth formed and stopping it would require geo-engineering on a scale that most people can't even fathom
>ecosystems have always fluctuated and changed with the environment or just due to the biological processes of the life they're made of
>animals have always moved around between ecosystems as they changed to become more or less suitable for them or due to new areas becoming physically accessible through plate tectonics or random occurrences like animals floating around on logs
>animals have always encountered new competition this way
>animals have always changed or gone extinct due to selection pressure induced this way
meanwhile humans
>CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD AND WE HAVE TO *STOP* IT
>EVERY ECOSYSTEM MUST REMAIN FOREVER EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS WHEN WE WHITE PEOPLE FIRST SHOWED UP TO RECORD HOW IT WAS
>INVASIVE SPECIES ARE LITERALLY THE DEVIL WE NEED TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING EVER
>WE'RE GONNA SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>btw you have to eat bugs and buy a $150,000 electric car that can't go half as far as your $2,000 beater to save the world. if you don't agree you're a monster
how did we manage to use the greatest intelligence the world has ever seen to become the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet

>>15316685
Are there any blood restrictions in the Muslim faith?
Also, sorry, I'm taken so no fanservise

>>15316702
We got a couple of shots at this high civilization thing and kinda hit it, but not really. Maybe the next try will be better

>>15316702
>how did we manage to use the greatest intelligence the world has ever seen to become the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet
Because psychological methods can be used to convince rubes that they're virtuous saviors for doing whatever the people in power say is right and justified. So long as society is mostly secular, you can turn something into a moral issue and then make everyone rush to climb on board to get rid of their unforgiven guilt.

>>15316702
>the greatest intelligence the world has ever seen
Doesn't mean it's enough to become an enlightened species

>>15316751
How is a religious society different?

>>15316757
Well in traditional Christian society all that need for forgiveness was provided by putting your hands together and praying and maybe giving a little spare change to the church. Before that, you participated in pagan festivals and sacrificed to the gods. This seemed to encourage societal stability by dissipating this psychological need that otherwise leads to people forming easily led mobs of virtuous saviors saving the world and being heroes by acting violently and hatefully to those they deem targets.

>>15316757
Christianity has absolution of sins, and original sin is taken care of by the sacrifice of Christ. Other societies may have methods of working off your guilt, like through meditation in Buddhism. A secular society has no release valve for sin so the owners of that society can make one as they wish.

>>15316742
>Are there any blood restrictions in the Muslim faith?
>Also, sorry, I'm taken so no fanservise
I don't understand the question but the motivation of the peasants in 2002 was simply to sell the glass.
The seeds themselves were, to their estimation, worthless as they were in extremely low quantities (they were being catalogued because they had properties of interest, like resistance to certain conditions or disease but without the high yield of commercial crops). They literally just wanted to steal and sell the glass containers the seeds were kept in.

>>15313979
In reading over their argument with respect to preferring what amounts to yet another argument, among many historically, of polyphyletic parallel development, I can only say "I don't know anywhere near enough to figure out who is likely right". Indeed the more I read and looked over papers citing that one the more certain I became that I haven't a hope in hell of figuring that out, as merely applying generalities of principles such as "the exclusion principle" are meaningless where relevance is not established. I find I can establish no such relevance, so I can hardly claim there's some issue with the evidence or argument given. Doing so would just be dogmatic. And we all know how little reality cares for whether or not we personally feel something is "unlikely", let alone from my perspective as not being an avid reader let alone participant of the relevant science.

Put plainly "lol I don't know". So I retract my prior mistaken remarks with regard to the principle of exclusion as they were, as I feared due to my earlier misunderstanding, misplaced. It is a good point that without evidence merely assuming repeated loss and re-development of the same functional trait would not pass muster, as outlined in section 3. If one truly is only referring to "neuron-like" adaptations, rather than neurons, that resolves my stated confusion here >>15313262 on the matter. It would certainly be more sensible to suppose precursor functions would converge given selection pressure to do so, if in fact the hypothesis is truly limited only to homology rather than going on to argue polyphyly for actual neurons.

So that was the whole confusion on my part. Thinking they were implying something a lot further, such that neurons as we know them in various species somehow were not monophyletic. Entirely my fault for that misunderstanding.

>>15316702
>and stopping it would require geo-engineering on a scale that most people can't even fathom
You mean like the global pan-human geo-engineering experiment already going on where we're burning tons and tons of hydrocarbons?

And anyway, why don't you take a more rational / utilitarian approach: You don't need to decide climate change is morally bad or whatever to acknowledge that it's a costly inconvenience whose bill continues to grow and we are already receiving overdue notices.
Invasive species are a nuisance with respect to commercial crops, human settlements, recreation, etc.

>>15316788
and here we see one of those people who can't fathom the scale of geo-engineering required. If you want to stop climate change, first of all you're going to have to stabilize the output of the sun and stop plate tectonics. Good luck with those.

>>15316788
>You don't need to decide climate change is morally bad or whatever to acknowledge that it's a costly inconvenience whose bill continues to grow and we are already receiving overdue notices.
So you intend to spend 1000x more resources and cause who knows how much havoc on a global scale to pause the cycle of the climate in its current position forever?

>>15316788
Please stop feeding the climate change denying ideologues. I mean good lord it's plainly obvious from their christcuck circlejerking what they're here for. This has nothing to do with biology.

>Please stop feeding the climate change denying ideologues. I mean good lord it's plainly obvious from their christcuck circlejerking what they're here for. This has nothing to do with biology.
maybe read the posts BEFORE deciding they're the work of your political enemies

>>15316802
>maybe read the posts BEFORE deciding they're the work of your political enemies
I did. Do you think equivocating between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic climate change tricked anyone? I don't. Also, again, nothing to do with biology. Go troll a thread of climatologists.

>ugh you irrational christcucks are so irrational
>anthropogenic climate change is totally different from any other climate change because humans are magical creatures that are not part of nature

>>15316806
the sciences are all interrelated
you will never be a polymath

>>15316818
I don't think he'll ever even be an expert on anything if he makes a statement as fucking retarded as climate change having nothing to do with biology, they literally couldn't be more closely linked. The environment shapes life and life shapes the environment.

>>15316787
I'm glad I was able to somewhat assist with clarifying the parts that were not laid out clearly in the first article.
If I were to try and distil something much more pedestrian from all this research it would be that our type of structure with muscles and nervous systems allowed our ancestors to dominate the planet but that doesn't mean that it was the only viable way of implementing structures with the same function. Ours was just much less limited and allowed for great diversity and possibility for greater and greater complexion.
In that sense these creatures with another type of nervous systems are somewhat alien to us. If they were able to evolve in parallel with us to the extent of also going onto land and making a foothold, then they would truly be something that we imagined would live on the planets from the sci fi space travel books.

>>15311837
>All you did was assume you're right to say you're right
More of your fantasy world. If you've ever stepped foot in a college classroom dealing with science you know that "absolutely perfect" is a concept that only exists in a classroom.
I pointed out your total nonsense, you then pretended it was just an analogy to deflect, and now you're running away from a post enumerating a long list of reasons you are wrong. Simple as.
>so I need not bother further
Yeah, I rest my case. Run away.

>>15311868
>>15311870
>Didn't delete, got banned for 24 h.
No it's in the archives. The post was deleted but didn't break any rules, yet the other dozen posts of yours of the exact same quality remain undeleted. You've been caught and are lying your ass off.

>>15311868
>Are you the same person that believes that I'm a 4chan administration plant?
No, I'm not. His post was deleted too, most likely by you, because he exposed you. Deleted posts get 24 hour bans and I responded plenty of times in that timeframe so I'm telling the truth. Again check the archives.

How is veterinary compared to biology?

>>15317089
In what way? We had a chem-bio class (oposed to phys-math and Humanities) for the high school years and from what I know of my 18 classmates 2 got biology degrees (one works in sales, one is married and a housewife last I checked), about 5 are physicians, one pharmacist (never worked in professional setting, does arts), two dentists (making good cash in private practice I think) and about 2 went veterinary. Didn't speak to them but they seem to be fine when I open Instagram once in 2 years. The rest went non-stem ways

>>15316954
I assume it was deleted because the person who banned me used it as a case to activate it
Ok, I guess there are 2 anons that think I'm a spy. Not the fan club I wanted, but the one I deserve I guess

>>15317210
Is veterinary stem?

>>15317222
If you do research with the scientific method, then yes, I believe so

>>15317222
Know any interesting zoology related topics you can explore with us?

We can discuss it here
NEXT THREAD
>>15317239
>>15317239
>>15317239

>>15317222
>veterinary stem?
veterinary is Medicine.

8008132

>>15317248
I think this is a trap card type discussion so let's evade it
The first time in my memorie that the 1st page of Google has the word "retard" in it so I think the level of vitriol is not worth it

>>15317276
Medicine isn't biological science. No practicing nurse or doctor does lab experiments. Biology is hardly STEM anyway.

>>15317287
I know at least 3 dudes that work part time in a clinic whyle getting their graduate school courses

>>15317287
>No practicing nurse or doctor does lab experiments.
Some do. There are doctors especially in big hospital systems who will arrange experiments to see if the flow of patients or the delivery of care can be improved. It's more of an engineering and logistics challenge than a biological sciences one, but it's still very cool stuff.

>>15317295
>whyle getting their graduate school courses
these dudes are not doctors then

>>15317302
>arrange experiments to see if the flow of patients or the delivery of care can be improved
logistics and HR experiments. I guess they are still biology because it is meaty humans doing the actions though.

>>15317295
residency is not work, it's school.

>>15317314
They can also be genetics (genetic testing for disease) or expediting some kinds of labs. Healthcare is starting to realize that hospitals run like molasses and different ethnic groups in different regions need different kinds of care so lots of changes need to be made to serve the people they're actually seeing.

>>15317312
They did study medicine though
And any doctor can switch to science if he wants to

>>15317220
>(You)
>I assume it was deleted because the person who banned me used it as a case to activate it
The deleted post didn't violate any rules, and if some other mod deleted that post he would have deleted the rest of yours. You can't play this both ways. You pretend everybody else is making some coordinated conspiracy against you, but the evidence you present requires an even bigger conspiracy. Hence, you are lying. You made a bot and started to try and shift the narrative once several people in this thread started to point it out.

>>15317348
How much time did you spend on this investigation?

>>15317349
>responded within 56 seconds
Seek help

>>15311868
Well you who got banned and for how long, so that means you're a jannie.

Whats the rule about jannies identifying themselves and what is the punishment for breaking that rule?