/sci/ - Science & Math

Well, I guess no one cares. A bit dissapointing, but I suppose after a while of lurking I'm starting to derive enjoyment from the sheer scale of degradation of any pretence of actual scientific discussion.
In that view the fact that a thread on a topic that sparked an active discussion that easily reached 300 limit multiple times just a few months ago truly hilarious.

>>15498935
Biology is just a like subject here, and from what Ive seen since its so light, is the comprehension levels of those that are into it varies the extremes.

Unlike Math or Physics which have tons of novice fill threads, moderate amount of intermediate to check those retards and a few advanced to keep the intermediate from thinking they's is Kang.

An ecosystem of balance.

>>15493056 is a healthy thread but its been filled with Chemistry based Biology, which, idk...is kind of gay. They generally seem disinterested in the totallity of the Biological being and more into the Molecule....and unless they join the thread...I simply outweigh everyone else combined, so...no fun for anyone.

I am living deity, not cloud of atoms!

>>15499023
>levels of those that are into it varies the extremes
Meaning only one in each level, so its immediate outclassed.

bump

>>15498694
Where my microbiology fags at?

>>15499146
I think you are literally the only one just like I'm the only quantfag I've ever seen. Well there's that finance guy who I guess counts. Unless there are multiple microbiofags who keep asking where the other ones are and never meeting lol

>>15498935
>In that view the fact that a thread on a topic that sparked an active discussion that easily reached 300 limit multiple times just a few months ago truly hilarious.
The science people seem to still be here. The anti-science ones have slowly fucked off. Weird there seems nobody just genuinely curious about the science though all you get are people who are studying for it or know nothing but think they know everything and aren't studying for anything.

>>15499146
Macrophage, reporting for duty
>>15499155
I guess they have someone at work they can talk to about biology.

>>15499174
oh shit there ARE two of you? Holy shit it's a miracle I swear I've never seen more than one of you at once

>>15499146
>>15499174
Curious what branches of microbiology? Genetics? Immunology? Anything cool boppin in recent publications that you've read for you two?

>>15499147
>that finance guy
shaw?

>>15499181
The last thing I worked on in a lab was on brain-gut axis, specifically connecting microflora with the brain through the immune system.
Kinda didn't work out for me for unrelated personal reasons.
So now I'm just a "manager" for at least half a year and then we'll see.
When I was working everyone was talking about the apparent psychosomatic events triggered by IBS but I suppose that's more gastroenterology than microbiology

>>15499485
>brain-gut axis, specifically connecting microflora with the brain through the immune system
Huh. Mine was in interest of Psychological/Physiological changes to the person. Its been put on haitus until I meet with Michael Levine and exchange research about his Bioelectric signals, which I had taken into account but focused more on the Magnetic side of Electromagnetic interactions of seperate organisms.

Now Im curious if the bacteria alter the electrical signals.

>>15499485
>When I was working everyone was talking about the apparent psychosomatic events triggered by IBS but I suppose that's more gastroenterology than microbiology
That is interesting but for more than IBS I think. Allergies and whatnot probably do similar, but the concept is kind of rare in the literature of physical -> psyche somatization and is mostly psyche -> physical somatization or somaticism. Hell I even forget the term for somaticisms developing from immune responses or maybe there even isn't a damn term for it. It's on the tip of my tongue I swear.

Maybe there doesn't need to be a term for it but you'd think there would be for research reasons. It wouldn't be a psychiatric condition to, for example, fear an allergy induced asthma attack. Yet that fear could also get conditioned to other things like what I think your IBS research was? It's interesting if you'd like to talk about it or share your thoughts.

>>15499155
Yeah the midwit narcissist who trolled the last few threads seems to have left or been permanently banned so there is some home. Sadly he scared off most of the people experienced in human biology.

>>15499155
Yeah the midwit narcissist who trolled the last few threads seems to have left or been permanently banned so there is some hope. Sadly he already scared off most of the people experienced in human biology.

>>15499821
I don't really think so really, lots of bio people are here and were there too. It's 4chan so people making crazy claims like recovering transcribable DNA from such old fossils and the like is to be expected, same for people just trolling and denying evolution or the like. Just didn't have much to input that wasn't already being explained about stuff like how DNA degrades. Microbio people would probably have more relevant input, but I don't know if general microbio typically deals with such degrading or how bad it gets even in perfect conditions over millions of years either

>>15499819
The gist was that in child patients after removing the polyps from the collon they reappeared in the exact same place for some reason. There was evidence that the body's neuro and humoral homeostasis adapted to them to such an extent that it just regenerated them
At least that's the way I remember it
Could be a tall tale of course

>>15499181
I am honestly just a glorified tech at a food safety lab. Well, I get to release results and interpet plates, data, and shit, but I'm not research scientist discovering new archaea or anything fancy.

I do read stuff on my own time. I remember one paper describing someone dying from a Listeria innocua infection, which is a BFD because it's regarded as, well, innocuous, but there are definitely hemolytic strains out there.

Also, food plants are disgusting.

>>15499155
feel like most people interested in biology outside of anti-science bs have gone to /an/, to the point it almost feels wrong to post about biology in /sci/ without using the key-words "vaccines", "evolution", "autism", "race" and "IQ". Like, I wanna talk about plant and animal morphoanatomy and phylogenies, not fucking >"muh chuds how do I increase my IQ btw im unvaxxed"

Anyways, time to bring up what's ACTUALLY important: can Ctenophora just fuck off outside Metazoa? It keeps getting more and more basal by the weeks

>>15500422
Dude! why did you have to literally list every single bot attracting keyword in the goddamn dictionary? Do you want to thread to get swarmed?
>>15500252
>>15500401
Well hey thanks for sharing anyway
>Also, food plants are disgusting.
Nobody wants to know how the sausage is made for good reason lol

>>15498694
bump

>>15501860
>muh vanity thread
just let it die, nobody is interested in it and you have no meaningful content to contribute yourself

A paper I found recently while browsing: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2021.0641
Thoughts on this? I'm a little skeptical because it doesn't provide a model for the emergence of translation and I can't really see how it could happen in the model either given the constraints (but I can't see why it couldn't happen either), but it otherwise makes a good case to my admittedly non-expert eyes.

>>15501903
>emphasizing cooperation
"I cant, as a scientist, say they cooperated. I wasnt there, I didnt see it happen."

>>15500516
Looks like the bots just went to other threads. Really sucks because atm there's like 3 active IQ threads

>>15501882
I am not OP. Think OP just stopped bothering. I'm bumping because biology is a very diverse and interesting topic, and people might actually have questions or want to share research and discuss.

Just because you do things solely for your own vanity doesn't mean anybody else does anon

>>15501903
>Thoughts on this? I'm a little skeptical because it doesn't provide a model for the emergence of translation
So why not read a paper about the emergence of translation? I'm a bit confused by your expressed skepticism. Scientific papers generally are not going to, and not going to be able to, literally encompass the whole of absolutely everything in an entire field. Even then, you'd just be asking "okay but why do atoms do that then" and now the field has to also encompass all of physics, etc. I'm not sure what thoughts you want, therefore, other than to be told "go read a paper on the emergence of translation".

Which is why I found >>15501926 rather funny. I see what you did there.

>>15501957
Since I apparently didn't communicate it properly: I like the paper and find it plausible on the whole. My point was that it is very non-obvious how translation would emerge in the paper's model compared to everything else the paper covered.
And none of the papers that cite it seem to cover it either.

>>15501974
I am afraid you will have to just keep looking up and familiarizing yourself with the contents to make it more obvious. No different from me, so fair warning that I may make some stupid mistakes just trying to help.

>"[...] By contrast, the fact that extant RNA polymerization uses protein-based catalysts and the recent discovery that the core fold of RNA polymerases (the double psi beta barrel) [25] can be reconstituted with a limited amino acid alphabet suggest that RNA may have always been polymerized with a protein-based instrument. Hence, these ideas highlight the importance of RNA–peptide coevolution in enabling RNA polymerization as well as peptide polymerization [97,98]."

And later,
>"Although such polymers are less stable than peptides, they nevertheless can form secondary structures [127], and it has been argued that they could have served as an important intermediate during chemical evolution. In conclusion, it seems very probable that short peptides incorporating ncAAs and alternative monomers preceded ribosomal synthesis during the peptide-like/nucleoside stage. During the early peptide-polynucleotide stage, the earliest LSU-synthesized peptides also likely incorporated ncAAs and alternative monomers prior to protein synthesis according to an RNA template [128,129]. Their potential role in shaping protein structure/function remains to be better described by the origins of life and synthetic biology communities. Further evolutionary selection could have produced the canonical genetic code by fixing some early cAAs, purging others, and supplementing the early canonicals with the later structurally and functionally more complex additions."

And so. The model seems to be about co-occurring factors being more plausible, and not a linear case where you get one before another. So you get co-factors of increasingly rudimentary complement the more primitive you go. So translation is a product of co-emerging factors.

>>15502004
>>15501974
I could put it another way, come to think of it, and just point out the obvious. As far as evolution goes there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity". It naturally follows, then, that each subsequent more rudimentary stage or step is a product of useful elements that would closer resemble what we have in the modern day if you had all the steps. It's a gradient, not independent jumps or stages, even if our limited evidence superficially appears as jumps and stages. That's just a product of limited evidence.

I don't think relevant abiogenesis researchers have really believed any published set of facts and findings was really "some irreducible stage" since, by definition, you are not going to have separable stages of synthesis but gradients and degrees relative to some point you've chosen. The points are just going to be "what we know now", not "what is irreducible". So if you read earlier papers treating the statements made as "and at this point it is irreducible", that is a wrong reading, and you should read it as "that is all we know so far so it APPEARS to be the stopping point SO FAR".

I am sorry if that is obvious to you but it seems not very obvious in some circles. So it has to be said, in case it does help someone. Thought to say it in case the issue of your skepticism relates to this wrong conception, where you've inadvertently made an unrecognized assumption about some mutually exclusive "stages" or "progress". Evolution of life, and not surprisingly abiogenesis, would not have such stages. The closest would be where a given threshold renders the prior development impossible, like pulling up the ladder behind you, by radically altering the environment for itself in a way that is mutually exclusive with more rudimentary chemistry that lead up to it.

I don't know if that is helpful to you. It certainly would be to a lot of young earth creationists if they'd ever listen. Got to thinking about that after the joke about James Tour.

I graduated from a shitty school with a CS degree, and did average. I work in ML in finance and I'm thinking of making a pivot into biotech, maybe something related to drug discovery, computational biology etc. Is it possible? I guess I will have to go back to school. I already tried applying to some biotechs but it looks like you need a background in biology/chemistry/medicine/research which I have none. Is it possible to be a scientist working at a top company building cool things? From where I'm starting?

>>15502043
Can't help you myself from personal experience. I can try giving general suggestions on how to find out though. Have you tried finding other people in computer science who've transitioned to working over in biotech or biology? There are many applications in developing software and simulations, but may involve different math or higher math than you are used to. Certainly possible but would require a lot of work of course. If nobody else comes to help you were, try linkedin or other places and finding CS degrees now working in biotech, and aks if they'd be willing to answer some of your questions as to the transition and how to get the experience required.

Generally the more specific the questions the better, so you don't waste people's time or leave them giving you overbroad answers. You can also reach out to your alumni or prior university and such, maybe talk to professors or researchers and get the lay of the land. Departments might be useful for your first step, as various universities have multi-disciplinary departments like computer science and modeling with respect to biology or molecular bio etc. Hope that helps any.

>>15502047
I've got one or two leads and someone suggested LinkedIn as well. Good to know. Thanks!

>>15502054
np np you're welcome. hopefully someone more relevant comes by with maybe more specific advice from their experience too. Don't discount universities lots of times you also have professors who worked in private or know people who do too. Lots of people would really like to help onboard people, they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't enjoy it enough to keep doing it lol

Sort of like e-mailing a scientist about a paper or their research. You can e-mail a retiree who hasn't worked for 20 years, is 98 years old, about a book published in the 1980s, and you can get a response. So long as you aren't a nut or jackass that is. Needs saying since lots of people around here tend to have social anxiety and assume others are inherently hostile. They really aren't. Well, not usually.

>>15501974
Rereading the paper, I found this line:
>To and co-workers found that virtually all the E. coli aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) are nonrefoldable.
emphasis on virtually

Thinking on it some more, I have a plausible scenario:
>at some point, a proto-aaRS comes into existence, perhaps because 3 nucleotides bonded to an amino acid was a component of some important molecule or another and it served a good way to expedite the creation of such
>as it turns out, the 3 nucleotides also turned out to be a pretty damn good way to properly align amino acids for good peptide bonds (the function of the LSU); a proto-SSU develops for such
>over time, specific trinucleotides are associated with different amino acids (probably through providing subtle advantages like slightly better alignment)
>all the while the proto-SSU is spitting out long chains of RNA as excess from the proto-tRNAs
>at some point, the proto-SSU starts to be able to use those excess RNA chains as templates

>>15502085
I kind of see it like a range of available options that eventually resolve into a single dominant option just as with natural selection. Only instead of selecting something like genes you get the same thing, natural emergent fact some combinations do better than others so eventually everything left is building on that.

All the arguments as to which works best in what situation is really just kind of finding how different parts along that continuum ended up someplace down the road. Which just becomes something of a chemistry and physics question, as well as evidences of early earth conditions relevant to that chemistry, for which ones would've performed best in our guesses of what early environs were.

So every model proposed is just getting at the same thing. Argument and evidence about what the actual context was, and therefore which is the more sensible "victor", or even if there were victors beyond mere coincidence in some cases. I'm just not sure if the issue other anon (or you if that was you?) has relates to that, or as to the exact stated chemistry model of what the paper asserts is the more sensible pathway. If

Sorry if I still can't understand you properly. I'm trying my best.

OP here
Pleasantly surprised
>>15501903
Good article. Very illuminating
>>15501903
On a more esoteric note this article is a good addition to a 21st century push back on one of the greatest problems with the 20th century biology: the supremacy of genetics.
The development of epigenetics and research into the way that other parts of the zygote affect the organism (the membranes and mitochondria are the most obvious ones, transplanting a nucleus into an egg with different membranes and mitochondria in fishproduces a creature that is a hybrid despite having the genetic material of only one of the animals.
Truly, Lamarck deserves a big apology for the way he was dragged through the dirt for a century or more.

>>15502582
>Truly, Lamarck deserves a big apology for the way he was dragged through the dirt for a century or more.
eh? I don't get the relevance. For that matter given Lamarck was wrong in every way that counts except the loosest possible sense, he deserves nothing. Else we would credit many authors many centuries before actual crediting due to reasoning wrongly, but being in the general concept area.

Example, Aristotle would thus be properly credited with discovering elements of newtonian mechanics because he reasoned, rightly, that in a vacuum objects would remain in motion.
>In a void, no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful gets in its way.
Or I guess the expansion of the universe,
>Further, things are now thought to move into the void because it yields; but in a void this quality is present equally everywhere, so that things should move in all directions.
Or relativity,
>It is plain, then, that if there is a time in which it will move through any part of the void, this impossible result will follow: it will be found to traverse a certain distance, whether this be full or void, in an equal time; for there will be some body which is in the same ratio to the other body as the time is to the time.

If you start crediting people or giving accolades based on loose conceptual attestation things get fucking real silly real fast. There are numerous cases like this in ancient literature. Lamarck was wrong same way Aristotle was wrong, and they're only "right" if you take excess liberties with the concept of "right" and the concepts they espoused.

So I must ask in what way does Lamarck deserve any kind of apology? Nothing about epigenetics affirms his theories. Only loosely, vaguely, in the sense that "other shit also occurs", but nothing like Lamarck wrote about.

>>15502610
I'm kinda busy so let's get the chatgpt to answer that one
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a renowned French biologist who lived from 1744 to 1829. While he made several significant contributions to the field of biology, his most notable theory, known as Lamarckism or the inheritance of acquired characteristics, has had a lasting impact on the history of evolutionary thought. Here are some of Lamarck's key accomplishments:

Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics: Lamarck proposed that traits acquired or modified by an organism during its lifetime could be passed on to future generations. He argued that environmental changes would cause an organism to adapt its behavior or develop new structures, and these acquired characteristics would be inherited by its offspring. While this theory was later superseded by Darwinian natural selection, Lamarck's ideas influenced the early development of evolutionary thought.

Classification and Description of Invertebrate Species: Lamarck made significant contributions to the classification and description of invertebrate animals. He described numerous species and genera, focusing particularly on the study of mollusks. His work on mollusk taxonomy, "Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres" (Natural History of Invertebrate Animals), published in multiple volumes between 1815 and 1822, remains a valuable resource for zoologists.

Lamarckian Evolutionary Theory: Lamarck proposed a comprehensive theory of evolution that emphasized the role of environmental pressures in driving species change. He believed that organisms have an innate drive towards complexity and perfection, which results in their progressive evolution over time. According to Lamarck, this evolution occurs through the inheritance of acquired characteristics. While this theory was later challenged and largely replaced by Darwin's theory of natural selection, Lamarck's ideas were influential in shaping early evolutionary thought.

>>15502743
Lamarck's Concept of Use and Disuse: In his theory, Lamarck proposed that the use or disuse of certain organs or body parts leads to their development or regression, respectively, in subsequent generations. He argued that if an organism continuously used a particular structure, it would become more developed and functional, and this acquired trait would be inherited. Conversely, if an organ was not used, it would gradually diminish and eventually disappear in future generations.

Lamarck's Contribution to Paleontology: Lamarck made important contributions to the field of paleontology, particularly in the study of fossil invertebrates. He recognized that the fossil record provides evidence of past life forms and suggested that extinct species were once part of a continuous process of biological change. His work laid the groundwork for the development of paleontological studies as a crucial component of evolutionary research.

While Lamarck's ideas were met with both praise and criticism during his lifetime, his legacy lies in his pioneering efforts to explain the mechanisms and patterns of species change. While his specific theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics has been largely discredited, his contributions to taxonomy, paleontology, and the early development of evolutionary theory are still recognized today.

>>15502746
During the last years of his life, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck faced various challenges and experienced personal and professional difficulties.

Retirement from Academic Life: Lamarck retired from his position as a professor at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris in 1822. He had held this position since 1793 and had faced increasing professional isolation due to his controversial views on evolution and inheritance.

Financial Struggles: After retiring, Lamarck faced financial difficulties. He lived on a small pension provided by the French government, which was barely enough to support himself and his wife. The pension was reduced further in 1826, exacerbating his financial struggles.

Writing and Publication: Despite his financial constraints, Lamarck continued to work on his scientific writings. He revised and expanded his major work, "Philosophie Zoologique" (Zoological Philosophy), which presented his evolutionary ideas, and prepared other manuscripts for publication. However, he struggled to find publishers who were willing to release his works.

Declining Health: In addition to his financial troubles, Lamarck's health declined during his later years. He suffered from various ailments, including rheumatism and general weakness. These health issues likely limited his ability to engage in scientific pursuits actively.

Neglect and Isolation: Lamarck's ideas were largely dismissed and ridiculed during his lifetime, leading to his increasing isolation within the scientific community. Many of his contemporaries, including influential naturalists like Georges Cuvier, criticized his theories and discredited his work. This rejection and neglect took a toll on Lamarck's mental and emotional well-being.

Death: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck passed away on December 18, 1829, in Paris, at the age of 85. He died in relative obscurity, with his contributions to biology and evolutionary thought largely unappreciated at the time.

>>15502743
>I'm kinda busy so let's get the chatgpt to answer that one
If I didn't know I could in fact read wikipedia. No, you did not provide an answer. No, wikipedia does not provide an answer. No, your bot did not provide an answer. Thanks for flippantly disregarding what I wrote entirely as if I had no reason to write it. No wait what's the opposite of "thank you" again?

>>15502582
>Lamarck
Got a full name?>>15502743
>focusing particularly on the study of mollusks
He has fine tastes. A brainless animal. Feels without reee-ing. Perfection.

>>15502814
>Got a full name?
Nvermind, forgot I started a post before reading further.

Interesting stuff, I'll check him out.

>>15502610
>I don't get the relevance.
On a more ESOTERIC note, sir. Also...I could rebuttle virtually every line you posted, so if you want "Fuck you.", I can feed you it.

https://youtu.be/5ChRM4CEWyg

This specific subject touches on my personal research as well as linked. I totes get what he meant...youre appearing too autistic to abstract broader/higher/fundemental axioms from lowest "commonly used definitions using words not invented until the 20th century". Like claming everyone in history was wrong because they didnt use string theory wave-functions to describe everything, like dunces, ammI right?

>>15502822
If you're only "metaphorically right" you're 100% wrong.

>>15502768
The point is that Lamarck was a prominent biologist and a pioneer of evolutionary thought and Darwinism wouldn't exist the same way without Lamarckism preceding it. The same with epigenetics because they came out of neo-Lamarkism in the age where any no genetic transfer of characteristics was ridiculed (or turned into Lysenkoism which is even worse) which probably stunted the the development of our understanding of these processes.
What's worse is that politicians and corporate executives (and even some biologists that are not specialised in this subject and just do bioinformatics or something) operate with a time lag and make their desicions based on the outdated science because it's become a part of general knowledge.

Also he was ridiculed and pushed out into poverty by his colleagues and friends for daring to have a theory.
He died before Darwinism became a thing so we can't know what would be his response, probably he would change the Theory to account for it.
Asuxh as people become immortalised by their ideas, those ideas are doomed to stay the same without the chance to correct them and explain the context.
Lamarckism was competing with creationism and crazy greek ideas and in that sense was a big step forward

>>15502835
>metaphorically
Youre not some Mathematical BioPhysicist describing life in fundemental, base reality, equations...which ANYTHING ELSE IS 100% WRONG.

You aint that guy. Youre retarded and every post is becoming "Im just smarter, ok? I just am!"

>What ever you do...do NOT address points posted in previous posts, youre not interested in answers, youre interested in being superior. Just make new claims, rehash same claim or focused on me, otherwise CHOMP...and you KNOW it.

>>15502848
>Youre not some Mathematical BioPhysicist describing life in fundemental, base reality, equations...which ANYTHING ELSE IS 100% WRONG.
Your degree of being wrong is the degree to which your ideas fail to correspond to reality. Yeah. Sucks reality don't care about your feelings but what else is new?
>You aint that guy. Youre retarded and every post is becoming "Im just smarter, ok? I just am!"
Can I discuss things without the pointless dick measuring for once?
>>15502845
I can sympathize about being treated unfairly, but given how nothing of his theories are really related to modern epigenetics sofar as I know, and there are publications as to that opinion too as it's a hotly contested attribution where you already know my standing.

Thing is, just because he got treated poorly or had the least insane idea doesn't mean we ought attribute to him something completely unrelated. Or only related by the loosest connecting point of the general idea. In every other sense in every other specific Lamarck was wrong. That is why I tried to explain that if you give attribution like that, you have to attribute Aristotle with discovering both relativity and Newtonian mechanics as a reductio ad absurdum. That's in spite of my agreeing with you that people like Lamarck were not treated fairly.

>>15502860
>your ideas fail to correspond to reality
There is three people here in agreement, me, the other poster and the link....the Professor you didnt look up, and the guy in question, making that 4.

Youre one dude saying "Nuh uh."

>except the loosest possible sense
Youre words are loose and not equations.
>loose conceptual attestation
Again....you posted;
>wrong
>wrong
>wrong
These are the LOOSEST possible sense of a counter arguement.

NUH UH. NO U R. NO I AM.

>>15502866
...and after this, my only response wil be;

WHAT IS YOUR THESIS TITLE?

>>15502866
>Youre words are loose and not equations.
Truly, no fairer reading has ever been attempted. I could not be more sarcastic if I tried.

>>15502888
What was your Thesis on?

>>15502917
>What was your Thesis on?
Your mom.

>>15502935
>Asymetrical Genetic Lineage
Sorry, I use two of three eyes to see reality and my left eye/right brain can construct a Mathematical framework of the missing eye's perception of reality, so it still works but just in a different way than Nature intended.

Your Thesis is incomplete, did you even do your homework?!

F-

>>15501903
looks neat

>>15501945
Just for you I'll give a jolt to this reanimated corpse of a general once more.
On that topic...
I wonder how much was the effect of the magnetic field and radiation that are produced by the planet studied by removing it's effect wlile preserving the environment.
You would need to recreate a small ecosystem in a cage that would not allow them to penetrate and them substitute some commonplace sources like certain minerals.
How would the DNA repairing systems react if they won't be under stress to repair as much? Would they go into something like an autoimmune reaction or just stay dormant?
Questions questions...

>>15504381
>How would the DNA repairing systems react if they won't be under stress to repair as much? Would they go into something like an autoimmune reaction or just stay dormant?
That is an interesting question. It would probably matter more on a selective long-term basis, you still have to handle cancer and things like that. Odds are if it's beneficial somehow, like how we lost photolyases but gained better vision for blue light, you'd see selection in directions like that.
Example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolyase
There are many directions you can speculate but it's hard to pin anything down since what is being selected for is just up to the environment... and you can speculate any environment. That is, the fitness landscape an organism is in.

As for individuals and development of autoimmunity, I don't know enough about it to say with confidence. Hopefully someone in relevant molecular biology could explain it better. For DNA repair aspects not involving the immune system, so ignoring regular autoimmunity, I don't think it has that kind of overtuned behavior as immune cells do. Broadly the immune system is like that because we've evolved with a fairly high disease load, especially recently due to living with other animals in close proximity. Having an "overly aggressive" immune system under a very high communicable disease load would be very selective, but very self destructive if not. For DNA repair, like Nucleotide excision repair, it isn't like cells hunting and trying to identify other cells. It's more like copying over damaged portions, which won't begin without damaged portions identified by a mismatch.

Weird trying to explain it this way but do you understand what I mean? Molecular bio people would explain it better and I'm not even sure that's an entirely accurate summary.

>>15504395
>>15504381
I forgot to include the other wiki link as reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide_excision_repair
So far as I know, which on this is not much, I don't think there is an analogy to autoimmunity. If there is it probably would have to do with the development of cancers somehow, and you might have an interesting selective shift toward immune systems being selected for fighting tumorigenesis. Assuming I'm wrong about it just in case, since it's an interesting thought.

>>15504396
I suppose if you could find 2 subpopulations of one species that are mostly different in only one sense: one lives in especially irradiated or magnetic environment and is evolved to deal with it and the other does not, it would be a perfect model for research.
You can put them in this radiation/magnetism free experimental biome and see if the population not evolved for rad/mag resistance would outperform the other on reproductive success because they have surplus resources making them better adapted to other aspects of their environment.
We have this notion that it's how it works because any energy spent on developing specific adaptations is taken from general adaptability but it could turn out not to be the case. Perhaps the resistant population will thrive because they are just generally more robust because evolution only favours adaptability to the environment and doesn't promote surplus adaptation in case situation worsens. Many organisms, especially specialists, are barely good enough to survive in their niche the way it is and even if there is a surplus it just goes into developing something to expand your niche and bifurcate into subspecies and then 2 different species.
I'm kinda not qualified so if there's actually evolutionary biologists here I'll appreciate if you could take up the baton on this one.

>>15504442
>I suppose if you could find 2 subpopulations of one species that are mostly different in only one sense: one lives in especially irradiated or magnetic environment and is evolved to deal with it and the other does not, it would be a perfect model for research.
Oh that is a good idea, and we do have that. I should've thought of that. We have plenty of extrmophiles and including those who are adapting near high amounts of radioactive waste, or cases like chernobyl. I don't know, and with a cursory search did not find, anyone doing something like you proposed. However I don't know enough about microbiology research to know if the question has already been answered, though I also did give that a cursory search.

I can only tell you what anyone else would I suppose. It doesn't matter if you're not qualified what matters is if you're interested enough to keep reading to try and find out the answer, or even so far as experiment with it yourself. I suggest looking at research regarding extremophiles and on radioactivity and adaption in organisms with sites like chernobyl, or radioactive waste, and radioactivity experiments and organism adaptation. There's a lot of research out there but the more niche the less publicly available it tends to be sadly.

If you were some student of mine your unhappy reward would be "Great so here's this comedically large pile of documents let me know what you find". that's just how you really end up learning things and developing an interest. Sometimes you have to be the one who digs into it, and people like me have to admit "I don't know enough and don't have the interest you have". It's your baton anon, you should try to carry it. See what you can find about uranium and radiation experiments and such

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_(organelle)
>highly conserved
>removing it doesn't seem to do anything
What could it be doing bros?

>>15505315
Facinating. Really fallout-like atomic age kind of thing. I wonder if you could use radiosynthetic organisms to slowly work their way through our nuclear waste or even increase the speed of decay of spilled material or lower the radius affected by the nuclear incidents.
Kinda interesting that it's fungus and not bacteria that apparently does this, you would expect it to be the other way around.
>>15506351
There is a whole section in function on the Wikipedia page. Probably originally it was mostly involved with the operations of the nucleus but then gained additional functions. Evolution usually takes the stuff that's already there and molds it into a new thing instead of getting a new thing made so a lot of similar looking things with the same origin have wildly different functions.

>>15502768
>>15502845
>>15502860
>The inheritance of acquired characteristics was proposed in ancient times, and remained a current idea for many centuries. The historian of science Conway Zirkle wrote in 1935 that:
>Lamarck was neither the first nor the most distinguished biologist to believe in the inheritance of acquired characters. He merely endorsed a belief which had been generally accepted for at least 2,200 years before his time and used it to explain how evolution could have taken place. The inheritance of acquired characters had been accepted previously by Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, Roger Bacon, Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, John Ray, Michael Adanson, Jo. Fried. Blumenbach and Erasmus Darwin among others.

>Zirkle pointed out that Lamarck did not originate the hypothesis that acquired characteristics could be inherited, so it is incorrect to refer to it as Lamarckism:
>What Lamarck really did was to accept the hypothesis that acquired characters were heritable, a notion which had been held almost universally for well over two thousand years and which his contemporaries accepted as a matter of course, and to assume that the results of such inheritance were cumulative from generation to generation, thus producing, in time, new species. His individual contribution to biological theory consisted in his application to the problem of the origin of species of the view that acquired characters were inherited and in showing that evolution could be inferred logically from the accepted biological hypotheses. He would doubtless have been greatly astonished to learn that a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters is now labeled "Lamarckian," although he would almost certainly have felt flattered if evolution itself had been so designated.

>>15498694
I work in an insect lab (a certain annoying one), developing baculoviruses as the based 90s biotechs working on pesticides intended. I am in a unique position where the NIH is funding my gibson-based active virions (since they cant spread without the occlusion body protein) as a method of gene therapy.
Both the AI techbros and the WHO have "expressed concern" around the tech I use for the reason of how I use it (just with "mass death" instead of fucking with insects). How long do I have to publish before this tech gets me on a list or I cant print my insertions without tons of red tape (backbones are not hard to be found, so I dont need a company to make it for me)?

>>15506623
I would like a source on that claim.
I read Aristotle and he seems very much not a proponent of any kind of evolution. That's kind of a red flag for me.
Unless you have quotes from Aristotle to that say otherwise, I'll remain skeptical about this.
Plus all those theories were present before the scientific method was established so they are just guesses like the anons above proposed earlier. I must disagree on Lamarckism as it is an actual scientific theory, even if it turned out to be incorrect it helped pave the way towards the modern evolutionary theory.
There's a book called "the growth of evolutionary thought", highly recommend it, I'm going through it for my research.

>Lamarck proposed that traits acquired or modified by an organism during its lifetime

Developmental Genetics was revolutionary and counter culture which held that species were made a certain way and that was that. Gene swapping was understood via mating, but DURING lifetime changes was revolutionary.

Bro...your ability to abstract Sociological and Scientific understanding is terrible...

The same as saying "Newton didnt describe everything is String Theoy wavefunctions, so he was completely wrong about everything, same foreveryone in every field before wavefunctions."

Autism...it effects every field of research. In real life you use beatings...but online theyre protected by a forcefield.

>>15506798
Would you consider writting a monograph on your research and publishing it on the web if everything gets shut down?
The history of science shows that even if it is outlawed right now, people will reopen the research sooner that later.

>>15499146
Bacteriophage research signing in

>>15507033
I mean, a guy wrote a book about how scary the hecking zombie exploding caterpillar virus could be in '98, and you see companies like monsanto drop their research. I'm lucky enough to have an industry vet from that research in our lab, and the main goal is applying the tech for our developmental biology research. It's half of my thesis work, so at least something will be recorded.

>>15507066
I used to be in the HHMI phagehunters, are you just an undergrad finding/mapping your own virus or are you in something like phage display or therapy?

>>15506351
I remember their being a thread on this. I think they agreed that it probably helps somehow in stressful conditions before the thread got derailed.

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer.

Another student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein.

>>15508610
have you're (you)

>>15508610
The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.

Realistically what is the next stage of human evolution?

>>15508872
Hopefully rapid extinction

>>15508872
People are slowly getting taller and loosing some Atavist structures in their body in the short term.
Genetic engineering seems inevitable in conjunction with cybernetic enhancements so humans will probably will artificially select themselves to be the way they want to be, probably into the form best adapted to space travel and Mars collonisation seeing as we are unable to sustain civilization there at the moment due to successful pregnancy being out of the question and it would be much cheaper to make it possible biologically rather than build facilities simulating Earth like environment on the shio where every extra kilogramme of mass is impactful.
At least that's what I think

I wish cellular biology garnered more interest than it does. There is some genuinely amazing stuff there that most will never hear about.

Why the fuck are viruses still not considered alive?
>b-but they can't reproduce on their own
Bullshit. They reproduce just fine when in the right environment, just like any other organism.

>>15510111
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they need another organism in order to reproduce? You can't just drop a virus into MEM and grow a colony. I suppose there are other obligatory reproductive organisms as well, but no vrius can exsist without utilizing the replication machinery of other organisms. Therefore, it does not follow one of the rules of life (they cannot self reproduce)

>>15509899
Tell me something interesting (I'm a layman so keep it simple)

>>15510551
>keep it simple
Simpler is more difficult for people to understand.

https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY

>>15510111
>Why the fuck are viruses still not considered alive?
It's sort of like if you had a broken program that cannibalized other stuff to replicate itself. Do you call that alive? You can easily do that as a "joke" and have it replicate itself by deleting files.

Conceptually, what viruses do just doesn't quite make it to certain definitions of what "life" is. Otherwise you'd have to call a lot of things life, or alive, even self-arranging chemistry that doesn't reproduce by itself but can in certain circumstances technically thus becomes alive. So here we are trying to figure out how to define what life is and viruses decide to be right cunts about it.

>>15510588
>It's sort of like if you had a broken program that cannibalized other stuff to replicate itself. Do you call that alive?
N'ay...it be the creation of the Devil.

>>15510551
The scientists thought that platypus was a fake animal and were generally confused about it's nature for a long time, thinking it was an otter with a duck's beak attached to it.
Also here's a shoebill. People who say that there were no dinasaurs should look at this, the saltwater crocodile, the commodo dragon and a few other animals and think again.
It also sounds like the Predator.

>>15510551
Viruses make significant changes to the morphology of their host cells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroplasm

>>15511612
That has the potential to be very terrifying.

>>15510551
You know how sometimes shit in biology is converted into a metaphor for better understanding? Well, the ATPase enzyme (creates ATP from ADP + Pi inside your mitochondria) is LITERALLY the smallest rotor in existence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639240/
The article above even compares it to man-made power generators.

>>15510111
>>15510588
gotta wait until alien life is found to uptade our life definitions and see if viruses keep fucking it up, or if ayys are even weirder

im curious about the production of transdermal medications under non-factory circumstances, and i have a few questions.

are there any good books on the basics of transdermal medication production? not looking for complex carrier agent design or theory, just the basic stuff. skimming papers on pubmed gives me a basic understanding of lipophilic/lipophobic, molecule size, etc considerations, but i feel like im missing bits.

second, is there any reason an ordinary medication tablet could not be dissolved in ethanol to a given concentration? if that cant be assumed or is likely not possible, is there anything i could read that would help me figure out what is required for a medicine to be able to be prepared this way?

also holy shit this board has gone to shit in the years ive not been here. 2020 really fucked this place i guess.

>>15512085
Not sure about the transdermal medicine, intravenous injections are usually preferable since it's going to enter the bloodstream anyway so it's the most direct method.

Drugs have tests with the combination with alcohol during clinical trials and most of them modify their effect if consumed together with alcohol. Usually means the drug loses es effectiveness and the side effects become worse or new toxic compounds are created in the blood from them reacting with each other.
It's probably for that reason. Most drugs can't be taken with alcohol, so combining them is not viable despite any possible advantages

>>15512133
well, i mean non-factory in the sense of perhaps less than ideally sterile environments, improvised compounding etc.

guess alcohol is probably not an effective solvent for this then. working with water under less than sterile conditions seems substantially more difficult than with a naturally anti-bacterial liquid.

what do you make of the viability of taking powder tablets and producing transdermal solutions from them more generally?

>>15513077
It usually makes sense if you want to affect the specific region the most and avoid unnecessary damage to the liver and other organs that will suffer greater side effects if it is taken orally. But I'm not a doctor, I'm a biologist so who knows.
Ultraviolet light lamp and boiling should do the trick in the field if you must sterilise the water I think.

biology class i heard that you could cross dog breeds and get like a labrador - poodle mix and stuff so i tried to make a dane-bulldog mix but all i got was a trip to the ER with bite marks on my rod and a bill for animal abuse my name is dane btw. Much love from Singapore!

>>15514298
it would have been funny if you where Danish, ESLoid

>>15514536
H-hey Octavian, do you remember me from Biology? Freshman year? It's Laura. I just wanted to stop by since you missed the last reunion, I was looking for you. I always thought you were really smart and talented, but I could never work up the nerve to tell you. Anyway, I hope you're doing well...HAHA Just kidding, it's still Tanner you fucking gullible idiot lmfao. Anyway, the gym awaits, see ya man good talk.

>>15510565
Snails can stretch their body to a ridiculous degree

>>15515840
Like a penis.

It can be a button or you can pull it way long like Stretch Armstrong.

>>15498694
20 chickens, if they lay 1 egg each every day, collect and refine enough calcium to turn into 50kgs of cement in 1 year.

>>15515904
I thought it was 1.5 chickens producing 1.5 eggs per 1.5 days.

How do we end the enslavement of mitochondria /sci/? Set them free

>>15516235
t.wolbachia shill

>>15510938
he was referring to microbiology dumbass

>>15517457
>cell bio
>microbiology

As a human, is there really any reason to consume carbohydrates as a main energy source? Regardless of what is said about protein, exogenous carbohydrates just seem implicated in the degeneration of the body in so many ways. The only use they seem to have is growth when consumed with fats, but in adults this just causes diabetes.

>>15517574
Our brain consumes carbohydrates as it's main source of power and our kidneys synthesize it if there is a lack of it.
Our ancestors lived by hunting and gathering. The gathering part involves mostly roots, berries and fruits. We have enzymes to break down the alcohol because of that since they can ferment after ripening.
That being said, apart from very rare honey, sugary substances, just like the salty ones, a an unusual thing in our diet and they were like that basically until the industrial Revolution.
Due to that we don't have a natural stop button when we consume it, so instead we consume it till we become sick, the same with salt.
High levels of sugar are bad for your brain.
That being said, consuming fruits and vegetables, honey and chocolate in moderate ammounts is very beneficial to your health because they contaun much more than sugar in them.
Super processed foods like cotton candy not so much, but you can justify it once In a while by emotional boost it may give.

Biology is the science of moderation, balance and homeostasis. We are a generalist species to say it lightly, there were populations that survived mostly on potatoes and there are those that ate mostly meat, blood and milk. The main issue is that we don't have physiological signals to prevent us from consuming too much sugar and salt because in the wild finding these things is exceptionally rare so we go into "take as much as you can since you won't get a second chance" mode.

I advise you to be sceptical of any positions in biology that operate in absolutes, whatever it may be.

Biology is all about them spectrums and gradients.
Almost anything that is deadly in even smal doses is nessesary for our functioning in microdoses if it is present in the environment that we evolved in. Of course it doesn't nessesarily mean that it's ideal, there are plenty of ways you can go beyond that or supplement that, but yes.

Lead is pretty bad for living things though, even plants and fungi.

>>15518260
>I advise you to be sceptical of any positions in biology that operate in absolutes
What are the health benefits, scientifically speaking, of cyanide?

>>15518260
We make glucose so that we don't have to consume it and risk carbohydrate toxicity. That much is obvious. Any exogenous carbohydrate is too much, that's the point.

>>15518301
Nice strawman. It's an antifeedant in some plants and fungi. Keeps them from being eaten. Also, Cyanide is just the name for the group of compounds with the C≡N group.
They are also used to mine gold and silver and those have plenty of benefits, I'm writing on the device that needs gold to be manufactured.
They are also used to make nitriles that are useful for many things we use every day. Plus pic related
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

>>15518323
>That much is obvious.
That's not how biology works. You can't just say things are this way because that seems reasonable to you. You're not Aristotle and it's not 3rd century BC. This is not nutritionist general where you can just say things and expect people to go along.
Provide biochemical explanation or at least robust statistical analysys of the data, preferably published.

Ben Eisenkop, better known by his Reddit pseudonym Unidan, is an American ecologist. He became popular on the social media website Reddit as the "excited biologist" who answered questions and explained concepts related to biology and ecology before being banned.
He was banned from the website for vote fraud – using multiple secret accounts to increase the popularity of his own posts and decrease the popularity of competitors' posts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidan

>>15519106
wat

I'm looking at a group of genes that encodes for some stuff including some olfactory/vomeronasal receptors. Some thing produced by the genes should eventually bind to some of these receptors, but I don't know what thing (ligand?) or what receptor. How would I figure this out? I'm thinking of buying expression vectors for e. coli to test out some of the things, but I'm hoping I could somehow work through the chain of causality to guess at what I'm supposed to make in the first place.

>>15518628
So its good for me?
[pop, gulp, pained swallow]
I trust you more than my family...I wish that wasnt a joke.

>>15498694

Here’s some food for thought. It took us millions of years of evolution, consciousness, intent, research, accidents, resources to get to the point of understanding that DNA sequences hold a meaning. We are still not done yet with this. Where did the cell’s proteins learn to understand the code? And how does the word “understand “ mean to a set of amino acids? It is very easy to dismiss this question by referring to some generalities of chemistry and physics. The reality is that it is incomprehensible. No amount of causality will solve this. Confound everything else that derives from this you get a sort of practical omniscience.

Evolutionary forces are well described, yet the question of its practical omnipotence is never approached. Are these simple forces a sufficient explanation to the diversity of life?

We have this malady of always falling to the consequences of the medium being the message. When we started aggressively putting machines into the world, the world was turned into and explained as a machine. Notice mechanisms in biology. Proteins are just seen as pieces of machinery. The cell is a machine, the organs a machine “a filter, a pump..”and the body ultimately a machine. Humans included (dehumanization). We got into the Information Age, and now all is about sequences and data harvesting. Everything is data. Even humans (further dehumanizing). Notice how in a consecutive fashion, everything has slowly become relative and undefinable. There is no “nature” to things, things are malleable since we are “just chemistry”.

Yes quite some rambling, but the pretentious nature of Darwinian biologists is quite sickening. There is a passage in a textbook we use to teach students that claim that “evolution is not goal-oriented”, and the explanation is so subliminal and dismissive. It is basically telling the readers, humans, the only species who can read that textbook, that they are no different than worms.

>>15520200
>Evolutionary forces are well described
lol
"The body is round"
[sigh]
Close enough...

>>15520151
As you are probably aware there are databases for human and mice genomes available online to look through. It would probably be a good idea to find the lab or researchers that are publishing studies related to what you are looking for and email them.
Could you specify what receptors you are talking about?
It would also help to know in what context you are looking be it for the lab or just for personal curiosity.

>>15520705
Thank you. I'm working on figuring out how people are able to differentiate those with different HLA DNA via olfaction. There are a lot of papers on it, but noone's sure yet exactly how it works. Doing it for personal curiosity, but am willing to buy shit to figure it out.

>>15520200
Are you implying that the answer is Jesus or what?
Because otherwise it seems you are just too scared to admit that we are just the product of space dust forming into objects with interesting properties. Looking for some grander meaning in the cosmos because you can experience it and are conscious even though it's just a convenient side effects of adaptation to the environment.
We already discussed the origin of life in this thread, the current understanding is that proteins started to evolve into polymers and to propagate like prions in the pools of liquid where there was a cycle of wet and dry. Then they caralised the nucleotides to form and started to evolve alongside each other until they becsme interconnected through the proto ribosomes within the proto membranes of proto cells. Something like that, at the moment there is no omnipotent complexity to marvel at on this planet. There is plenty to marvel at in the universe and some places on Earth like the deep sea that need to be studied, but that's about it.

Humans are not special and that much much different from worms, there are aliens who were, are or will be as sophisticated as we are and beyond.

I'll give you the observation that everyone seems to describe things through the current fad like mechanically or data based but that's a very well known phenomena. It's like Newtown's laws and Einstein's general relativity: they are not contradictory, jus t that the general relativity covers more ground and answers things that were not explainable by Newton's laws.
Data is as far as we got at the moment.
There probably is a further layer ahead.
During the late 19th and early 20th century Darwinism and germ theory was a fad and most ideologies talked in the terms of eradicating the infection and the most powerful prevailing owner everyone else.
It's is a shameful page in the history of biology, but it is there and we must be mindful of it.

>>15520720
Even if you are not a certified biologist I think the best way for you to start would be to get into contact with the land that are working on it. Often times the hyperspecialisation can lead to several groups investigating the subject from different angles but not coordinating. Perhaps you could be able to synthesise a more general understanding of the subject and then be able to design a good experiment. I'm no expert but unless you have infinite time and money I would recommend putting as much energy as possible into designing the experiment so it has more chances to produce results.

Good luck to you with that, I'll be glad to hear when you make some progress and try to answer any questions I can, although I'm not a geneticist so my knowledge is limited and If you know how to read the literature you are on the same level as me.

>>15520734
Thank you Anon. Can we exchange contact info of some kind? Mine is monokumaBear@protonmail.com. I don't check it often though b/c it's my burner

>>15520282
What I mean is exactly what I said. I didn’t say those mechanisms are enough to explain the diversity of life, nor its complexity. They might be good enough if you single out a trait or simplify a given context. Darwinians propose that they do explain everything, but obviously they would say so, because they believe Nature is omnipotent and omniscient, they just don’t say that out loud.

I am of the opinion that what we know of everything is guesswork backed up by statistical models that don’t mean jack shit outside of mathematics.

I also argue that there is something awful with the “scientification” of all things in that it strips away the meaning and value of said things. For example, love is what makes you care for family, friends and the common man. Scientism describes love as chemicals, neurotransmitters anns action potentials, and behaviour selected for by consequence of increased fitness. In this scenario, the science of it is actually bullshit that serves only to denigrate what love is and what it means to humanity. To describe it mechanistically is to destroy it, or corrupt it. It is peculiar how supposed knowledge of something can actually make you know less about that same thing. Can we then call it knowledge? If not what is it?

Christ is the truth, the way, the life. By "life" here I mean someone/something like the Holy Spirit which is the living essence of God. Now there is confusion where "light = always good," no because the devil was/is able to create false light (way) that ends in destruction, essentially this is like sin, but in modern times it is the sea, the plane of emotions (like passions). You could say that the devil is "alive" somehow, but not truly because he doesn't have the heart that God has.

And this world is answering the question "who is like God?" completely and fully-- we have big machines, demons, even ourselves competing either implicitly or explicitly to "be like God," but there is nothing like him, nor anybody, and what makes God who he is isn't just incredible strength like how everyone thinks (the devil also has incredible strength)-- it is his heart.

>>15520722
I am implying that this whole existence points to a Creator, and nobody can deny it. Who this creator is is what people argue about. Scientism assumes people are gullible enough to not question their a priori beliefs that make them propose these theories as if ideas come from a void. Scientists claim authority in matter of Truth by claiming nobody has access to it except those that are part of the club. A priestly class, really.

The fact that you propose that we understand abiogenesis or that our theories are anything but religious speculation is indicative of dogma.

We don’t even know what makes a cell alive, and what it loses the moment it dies. We do not understand how proteins know that other proteins are shaped/folded correctly or incorrectly. Understanding is not even the point.

What really amazes me is that those same Darwinists have no issue proposing that a particular protein has a particular function in a cell, yet argue that the Universe has none. Every little thing in you serve a function, and yet you consider yourself a fruit of chance with no function. The fact that you have the capacity to look at your own actions and be able to judge them according to a greater principle is indicative that you are different in nature than everything else out there. To minimize your importance is cowardice, because you are attempting to forfeit the authorship and moral value of your actions.

The other great mystery is how much trust those atheists put in their cognitive abilities when those brains rise from a Universe that is an accident. Ultimately cognition cannot be trusted in that case. That belief also entails that there is no criteria framing this Universe; nothing adjusted It in a way to make itself perceptible by human cognition. Yet we are the only ones that have the capacity to contemplate, and the Universe is structured in a way that makes our contemplative powers possible and meaningful.

Accident? I don’t have faith in that.

>>15520743
That's like, your opinion, man.
Many scientists who don't ascribe any special characteristics to the phenomena of love and care for family and other virtuous pursuits are good partners and parents.
There are many examples of abnormalities in this behaviour. Mothers who are so overcome with post birth depression they neglect or actively harm the child. People who suffer a head trauma and suddenly change their character, usually not in a good way. The list goes on and on.
There are many cases in which the usual experience of live and care is not available to people due to the medical circumstances. The only way to help them achieve the ability to experience these wonderful emotions is to break them down and understand their functionality so we can see where the problem is and develop a way to fix it.
Denying that just because you are uncomfortable to live in the world where there is nothing supernatural about love and family is very self centred indeed.

>>15520737
A few months ago some lunatic was stalking me throughout the board and raving that I was a Janie and used my authority to monetize my history of biology podcast and that I was a Jew. Needless to say the podcast is at 250 views after 4 months and is a passion project.
Forgive me for my caution and distance.
Here's my YouTube page
https://youtube.com/@TheHistoryofBiology
I'll save your email.
You can leave a comment if you want me to contact you.

>>15498694

Damn I'm reading about Diel vertical migration and it's so fucking cool
What are some other cool things that will blow my mind?
Is there any reason why the ocean floor isn't the most rich area?
You have marine snow and only like 1% of it must be utilised in the ocean and the rest would fall to the ocean floor
Is it just an endless swarm of scavengers eating it all?
Also I just learnt that Southern Elephant Seals dive extremely deeply, I wonder what they've seen

>>15521136
>You have marine snow and only like 1% of it must be utilised in the ocean and the rest would fall to the ocean floor
iirc most of the mass of any given particle of marine snow is microorganisms growing on the piece of debris

>>15521136
>Is there any reason why the ocean floor isn't the most rich area?
There’s a very high chance that it is far, far richer than we realise. Only relatively recently have we begun to learn that deep sea corals not only exist but cover far more area than shallow water coral reefs. Too bad we started destroying them with trawlers before we knew a whole lot about them

>>15521136
That's pretty interesting. I wonder if it could have some environmental use

>2 weeks to study microbio exam
>starting training in microbio lab soon after
I-I can read a 1k page book in 14 days, r-right fellas?

>>15523266
You'll be fine.
Remember to sleep properly so your short term memory consolidates.
Don't be daunted by the page count, look at the actual content.
First just read it through once without trying to memorize. Sleep on it. Now you'll have general familiarity with it.
After that just learn it normally at your own pace. You've already passed plenty of hard exams so don't be daunted.
I never study more that 3 days before the exam because I get sick of it so maybe I'm not the best to give advise, though.

I want to poison myself with mild poisons
Basically the worst kind of poisons I can get with no permanent damage, no risk of death or seriously risking my health due to bioaccumulation
Any suggestions?

>>15524278
Caffeine or alcohol kek

>>15524278
Ricin

>>15524278
Try bee venom creams.
It's good for you in small doses

>>15519106
>reddit
of course

It's a bit desolate here
That's preferable to bots and bait posting on inflammatory subjects and arguing first principles, but still.
My game is on maintenance so I've got extra time to burn.

How's life treating you, fellow biology anons?

>>15526068
>How's life treating you, fellow biology anons?
Horrible, Im alive on planet Earth with no way home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_hornet#Solar_energy_harvesting
Photovoltaic bugs are pretty fucking cool.

>>15526293
Indeed.
Hey, >>15524278 anon.
Here's a good venom for you
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34868283/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35892025/

>>15526293
Further reading suggests that the generated power is only used for resistive heating, which is pretty boring.

A xanthopterin solar cell was demonstrated to have a conversion efficiency of 0.335%; the conversion in the cuticle may be a bit above or below that, but probably not much.

>>15527018
For reference:
Solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 44.0% with multiple-junction production cells and 44.4% with multiple dies assembled into a hybrid package.[19][20] Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14–19%.[21]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency

>>15527774
Yeah, not exactly groundbreaking in that regard, is it?
But it's still interesting that it happens at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riftia_pachyptila
An animal subsisting entirely off of chemoautotrophy.

>>15529725
That is indeed interesting. First time hearing about anything like that despite being a biologist.
I guess the marine biology is still very much a frontier in many ways, especially conserning life close to the seafloor

another microfag reporting in. how we doin bros?

>>15529932
sqr pathway or sox pathway which is better

>>15529987
for me it's the sos response, fuck metabolism pathways

>>15529771
What's weirder is how a close relative to that worm is another worm that pretty much grows a bunch of roots inside the bones of whales, until it reaches the juicy shit. This group for a long time was considered the phyllum Pogonophora because it's a bunch of weird things (linked animal doesn't even have mouth and anus), until recently where they were grouped inside Annelids.

>>15530015
Bathykermadeca thanatos sp. nov. For those who are interested.
Naming them after Thanatos is a nice touch.

https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4450.5.4?articlesBySameAuthorPage=2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parakaryon_myojinensis
the only observed organism to date with a completely unknown placement on the tree of life

>>15530324
The one I was talking about was Osedax genus, but interesting to see there'a more wormy folks like that

>>15531742
To clarify what I meant by 'observed', I remember reading a few papers that took DNA fragments from the open ocean and found that some of them came from very deep-branching organisms.
I'm going to sleep now; I might look for those papers and post them tomorrow.

>>15531742
>>15532020
That seems like a real bombshell of a discovery.
Is it a protist that evolved to downgrade itself to be more bacteria-like? Maybe it received some elements horizontally but instead of incorporating it as a mitochondria it interfaced it into its membranes? Perhaps it's a different lineage of Archean descendants that didn't go beyond one celled form?

Current understanding of eukaryotic evolution is through the horizontal transfer and basically assembling the cell from several arches if I remember correctly. How does this thing fit in?

Is it even real if it was only detected once in such a strange way?

Looks like something on the level of megalodon still existing, only microscopic so it's much more likely to be true.

Perhaps the same way the theory of spontaneous generation slowly went from fish to insects to protists to bacteria until being disproven our cryptid animals will go the same way and we'll be looking for some rare unbelievable bacteria that could answer some questions or provide the gene basis for some medical or industrial implementation.

Probably not since it's much harder to make the general populace interested in bacteria over a Sasquatch, but a good premise for a cheap sci fi book.

>>15532216
>That seems like a real bombshell of a discovery.
Unfortunately, they couldn't get a genetic sequence, seeing as the authors' modus operandi consists of (simplifying here) freezing a volume of material, slicing it up, running those slices through an electron microscope, and reassembling them in 3D software and looking for something interesting. Even if they had a live sample, they probably wouldn't have been able to culture it, and there weren't really any good methods for getting the genome without a culture back in 2012.
>speculation as to what it is
It's probably not a eukaryote, but not much else can be said for sure.
>Current understanding of eukaryotic evolution is through the horizontal transfer and basically assembling the cell from several arches if I remember correctly.
The current understanding of eukaryogenesis is that an asgard archaea had a symbiotic relationship with a bacterium and the relationship evolved such that the bacterium ended up living inside the archaea.

>>15532831
I wonder if that occured more than once. Did the first eucaryotic cells only have mitochondria and then plants spun off them when chloroplasts entered them or maybe the chloroplasts were first or simultaneous in this process and then 2 cells, one with mitochondria and another with chloroplasts merged together?

If it was the first scenario as it is the most straightforward, by that logic the plants and fungi are the descendants of animals?

>>15534342
What? Yes, chloroplasts were likely acquired by a later symbiotic event, but that doesn't mean that animals are more basal than plants (and fungi don't even have chloroplasts so idk why you brought them up).

>>15535448
Why not? Technically the first life forms were heterotrophic and later aquired the ability to be autotrophic.

The same with the eukaryotes. The first were the heterotrophic and then later autotrophic ones came about. The fungi are mostly a form of heterotrophic, namely decomposers.
Both forms came from a single cell heterotrophic eukaryote ancestor that can most certainly be classified as an animal. The split probably came earlier in plants since they are much more different in metabolism from animals compared to the fungi.

>>15535693
you still watch children's cartoons like a little baby, you're not serious about science, you're too immature.

>>15535697
anime website newfag
>>15535693
Someone needs to brush up on their eukaryote phylogenetics, I see.
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30257-5

>>15498694
you cant just have a general science thread, it has to be applied science like medicine or gardening. medfags have a general, plantfags have a general in >>>/out/, ...

we could have a computational biology general if the software took off, or a biohacking general if it wasn't a flop

>>15535803
And yet, despite being one of the main science topics, this thread still hit page 10 multiple times. Tells you everything you need to know about nu-/sci/, really.

>>15529725
they are living the life...

>>15535750
Huh... Different anon but that seems
Interesting. I'll finish reading at some later time when I'm less tired.

>>15535803
What kind of elitiscism is that?
I've seen this t
General several times since winter and no one complained about that issue.

>>15535850
I mean... It's not nessesarily needed since no one wants to post here. If no one wants it, let it die.
If the thread is not well adapted to the current environment on sci, it will struggle and eventually die out.

I guess OP or someone else checks it from time to time to give it a bump. Looking at other threads that are it's neighbours at page 10 I don't see any harm in sending those into the Shadow realm.

>>15511914
Not sure it's a good comparison. It's like when everyone started calling everything a disease after the germ Theory was developed and became a fad.

>>15535803
Yes, let's have a super niche subject thread or a tryhard idiots putting shit that doesn't belong into their body to achieve results you can get normally If you weren't such a loser.

That will certainly take off more than a general that incompasses both of the subjects but still struggles to stay alive.

Why dont we better appreciate the thread instead of fighting over what could have been? You can't change the past but you can improve the future

>>15538772
Biology always was a bit of a intelectual brawl since the term was invented.
A lot of big characters that couldn't stand other big characters, friendships turned into resentment due to disagreements on theory, politics get involved, lots of stuff like that.
What happened to the animals that are in the fossils? Is evolution real? How does it work? Do bacteria generate spontaneously? Are genetics real? How do they work? Are white educated men the pinnacle of evolution and is it their duty to be the stewards of this planet? Maybe genetics are the capitalist propaganda of individualism? Can we make cyborgs with dog heads? Maybe breed women with gorillas? Or make people immortal through blood transfusions? And so on...

Current AI and sexual identity debates reverberate through biology today, both huge topics. Virology too.

>>15499174
What do you know about microglial cells?

>>15538981
I cant deny that, but what ive been seeing is that biology works better along side another type of science or study, chemistry, physics, anthropology, etc... we need eachother!

>>15540182
As some physicists would say, biology is stemming from chemistry which itself stems from physics.
That is an anachronistic view, of course, while they were essentially one in the same for Aristotle, after that the historic traditions of physics, alchemy and medicine (which included botany of medicinal plants and veterinary aspects, especially for horses) all separated for a while before slowly mixing into something more connected and structural that we see today.

>>15498694
Is genetics a good degree to pursue for a 22 year old with no degree?

>>15541238
Define good.

Plus it depends heavily on your country and personal interest in the subject compared to other life pursuits.