Biology PhD. AMA

Hey guys. A lot of you seem to have a shitty understanding of biological principles. I'm hoping to fix some of them

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7sh_nlz43Pc
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
www-personal.umich.edu/~negisama/asdf2.pdf)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Bump

Tell us about trannies

It's not really discussed in Biology. Most biologists are gender realists. I personally think tranniesm is a body dismorphic disorder that needs to be treated.

You have 20 seconds to defend biology as a legitimate science.

How long until we figure out how to stop aging?

What's your thesis?

I'm studying mostly space related fields.

How many Biology courses would I need to take before I get a basic understanding on primitive life-forms that could in theory be found in space?

RNA, single cell organisme etc.

Already have a lot of knowledge in physics, maths and chemistry

when am i going to be immortal

Evolution is a lie

...

SHART

how important do you think public policy is in relation to biology's future, stuff like outreach/education/etc

I can give that away, then you would be able to identify me.

>strawman, the thread

fuck off

>How many Biology courses would I need to take before I get a basic understanding on primitive life-forms that could in theory be found in space?

This is a pretty specific field. There's no regular course that would cover this.

tell us the truth about encephalization or did you get a phd and not find out

Next 100-200 years. If you live that long

K

hi user, physicist who does biology here

a molecular genetics course should get you most of the way, then academic journals from there

What are the most common mistakes you see here?

I think the main problem is lack of good new research. Tenured positions, which is where a majority of new research comes from, are declining. Most now PhDs go to work for corporations. Which is fine, but they don't actually do truly innovative research. This is the same problem most of the other science are facing.

Does consciousness have a measurable biological aspect?

has the biological community changed its ideas about abiogenesis recently? or polyorigination of human genomic groups?

What's in the mitochondrial dna of jews that seperates them from humans?

What do you mean the truth?

congratulations in your PHD in pseudoscience, you never learned the truth about human evolution

A lot of people really have no understanding of natural selection. They take survival of the fittest in a literal sense. All Natural selection is, is whoever has the most children who then go one to have children of their own. In this case the inner-city crack-whore with 10 children is orders of magnitude more evolutionary fit the female with an IQ of 140 with 3 PhDs without any kids. Same goes for comparing two guys.

>inner-city crack-whore with 10 children is orders of magnitude more evolutionary fit the female with an IQ of 40 with 3 PhDs

Shitty lifeforms tend to produce more offspring to compensate for the fact that they get BTFO by life

Does consciousness have a measurable biological aspect?

This is much more of a Philosophical question at this point. Biologists don't really have the knowledge or tools to quantify and measure consciousness.

>abiogensis
not that I know of

>polyorigination
The popular theory is that long ago(forgot the exact amount of time) hominid ancestors migrated out of Africa to Europe Asia and the Pacific Islands. They continued to evolve on their own for a while. After that another group of humans (homo sapiens) migrated out of Africa again and essentially bred the other ones out of existence.

Modern humans are composed of a majority percentage of these second migration Africans and a mixture of the other ancient gorups(who are usually less than 3%)

yup always make me laugh when ignorant idiots are arms about HASHANAH SURVIVAL OF FITTEST, THE WEAK WILL PERISH HURR DURR

Actually there is one idiot over on that double sperm whale beachin' saying that kind of shit , "DEY NEED TO LEARN TO ADAPT TO EATING CAR PARTS AND PLASTIC AND SHIET"

Most people have literally 0 idea what evolution is but they say is a lie because the idiotic people and politicians they listen to said so.

I crack up to people's reaction when I tell them natural selection doesn't "select" the best just whoever got to "nut" the most.

Cranium size isn't a great measure of intelligence. It's mediocre at best. Neuron density is what's important.

Again there is no such thing as shitty lifeforms in biology. There are those that survive and those that don't

Do you think man-made climate change is real?

What is your view of race? is it really a social construct or is that just a shitty leftist meme?

Yes.

>natural selection doesn't "select" the best just whoever got to "nut" the most.
sexual reproduction is incredibly inefficient, just a tool used by lesser forms of life.

I'm starting Biology in college tomorrow, wish me luck.
Any tips or heuristics ?

Race is definitely real, but I personally think it is a minor aspect when it comes to explaining the differences between groups we can see in the world.

>sexual reproduction is incredibly inefficient, just a tool used by lesser forms of life.
This is an AMA for Sup Forums not /r9k/

What are you hoping to do with the degree?

I would recommend looking up the professors before you choose a class. Biology classes are made or broken depending on how good and nice the Professor is.

What do you think of the role of the sun on climate change? See the research by professor Valentina Zharkova:

youtube.com/watch?v=7sh_nlz43Pc

when a professor asks you a question on an exam:

1) read it carefully
2) give EXACTLY what the question asks for: nothing more, nothing less
3) if you argue with the professor in the middle of your exam, you lose

Also, consider learning computer programming and mathematics.

I'm pretty sure most scientists have factored stuff like this into their research and findings. If you don't believe in man-made climate change that's fine with me.

More like suppresssing it:

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

>sexual reproduction is incredibly inefficient, just a tool used by lesser forms of life.

t. edgy virgin.

You didn't even understand the point of my comment, to make a reply like that.

Why is it you believe one article from breitbart about one physicists opinions over those of every other climate scientist?

>In this case the inner-city crack-whore with 10 children is orders of magnitude more evolutionary fit the female with an IQ of 140 with 3 PhDs without any kids.
What if the female has only one child? Couldn't this child have odds of surviving higher than that of at least 1 of those 10 crack children surviving, since the child will probably be smart and shit?

If in a given totalitarian nation, we force women to deliver children until they reach menopause, then kill them, will it be the case that eventually, women from that nation will reach menopause older and older?

what areas do we have misunderstandings about?

what is the corrections that you wish to make?

>breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

he is an idiotic biased alt righter that thinks all those thousands of scientist that benefit nothing from >muh carbon tax want his money.

Hey, fellow BioBro. Biochemist/Molecular biologist, here.

I've abandoned it years ago, since I lost interest in pursuing med school. I'm into comps now. Sad!

What area of biology do you specialize in? What was the focus of your PhD?

Every other climate scientist believes in man-made climate change?

Can you tell me what happens to scientists who are climate change skeptics? Would that hurt their carreer?

What happens to climate change skeptics? Does that hurt their carreer?

can you tell me how thousands of scientist who do research from europe all the way to antartica benefit from "hoaxing" climate change?

Since YOURE SO FUCKING SMART AND KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE SUBJECT.

Because breitbart is obviously more credible than herd mentality and authority mentality.

only if they're idiots like you who are arrogant enough to think that their opinions are more valid than, get ready for it, 50 years of data and research.

you think "muh global warming" became a hot topic in the last 16 years to get that "muh carbon tax" , Carl Sagan was giving people shit about it the 1970s.

BUT IM SURE HE WAS JUST JEWING FOR SOME LOBBY MONEY FROM THEM LIBERALS TO GET YOUR MONEY TOO HUH

DUHHHHHHHHHHHH
HOW CAN LIBERALS BE SOME STUPID AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

THEY BELIEVE IN SCIENCE! AHHA I MEAN ITS ONLY GIVEN US PRACTICALLY EVERYHTING IN THE MODERN WORLD BUT LOL THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT

FUCKING LIBERALS.

Did I hurt your religion?

Listen, I believe in climate change. But there is no evidence for *man-made* climate change. Climate change is real, but it's the sun, not man, that is causing it.

>50 years of data and research
There was a time where all information and specialists would point to Earth being flat or being the center of the universe.

>All Natural selection is, is whoever has the most children who then go one to have children of their own.
oh really?

wow, thanks for correctin da records

how the fuck do you even know what most people think?

so why did none of the cmip model predictions prove to be true by observation?

>it is a minor aspect when it comes to explaining the differences between groups
and between dog breeds?

>opinions over those of every other climate scientist
argumentum ad populum? coupled with argumentum ad authoritam?

gmm, trlly makes ya drink

aww, did you go so soon?

is 23andme reliable or just a scam?

I don't know what that picture is, but it sure looks like two Brazilian flags.

Is this the cells of an average Brazilian going through mitosis?

Does the existence of MAOA prove that blacks are 55 times more likely to be violent than whites? If so, how is this possible when race doesn't exist anymore?

>Hey guys. A lot of you seem to have a shitty understanding of biological principles.
Examples?

>What if the female has only one child? Couldn't this child have odds of surviving higher than that of at least 1 of those 10 crack children surviving, since the child will probably be smart and shit?
Doesn't matter. Most if not all of those 10 kids will survive. They will then go on to have tons of their own children. The inner city mom is more evolutionary fit.

>If in a given totalitarian nation, we force women to deliver children until they reach menopause, then kill them, will it be the case that eventually, women from that nation will reach menopause older and older?

Probably not. Evolution is shit at selecting for traits that appear after child rearing.

I just had my first day of molecular biology.
I'm not going to be a biologist, I just need a credit.

>Would that hurt their career?
Probably not. Especially if they are tenured. If anything showing solid evidence that man made climate change isn't a thing would make them a celebrity in the field.

The establishment tells us to believe in global warming, then global cooling, then global warming, etc. Flip flopping.

Again, I believe in climate change, but it's the sun and nature that causes it, not man. See for instance the medieval warm period.

undergrad microbiology student here, got a year left till grad school. Any advice?

this. Anyone suggesting "race" as the explanation to the questions of why the world is the way it is is telling the modern equivalent of a just-so story.

I feel like a lot of the alt-right has gotten into the bad habit of denying something is true just because liberals believe it. They've become almost as bad as the sjw liberals they love to hate.

But if they aren't tenured, it would hurt their carreer, right? After all, they would be crazy alt-right nutjob science-deniers, right?

Not an argument. If you can actually show data that proves the climate scientists are wrong that's great. Otherwise shitty anecdotes don't mean anything. I mean I could literally use your argument to defend astrology in modern times.

>I feel
great argument from emotion

so siens

I showed you data, see the medieval warm period. There was no industrial revolution, yet there was global warming. How do you explain that?

>and between dog breeds?
Dogs are selectively bred over multiple generations. Humans not so much.

>argumentum ad populum? coupled with argumentum ad authoritam?
Not how those fallacies work. If your appealing to a group of relevant authorities it's no longer a fallacy.

Pretty reliable. Just keep in mind google maintains the right to use your DNA "anonymously" in any future research.

>*man-made* climate change. Climate change is real, but it's the sun, not man, that is causing it

LOL, I mean its TOTALLY NATURAL when this type of change is happening in decades rather than thousands of years. Since you know so much , i bet you know how scientist can tell its happening much faster than "recorded" history right? They dig into antarctic ice and measure the layers (which are also visible by the eye) co2 levels as well as other atmospheric factors . Nah but you know more, can't wait till you're entire fucking country is flooded in 20-30 years over this bullshit
years of data and research
>There was a time where all information and specialists would point to Earth being flat or being the center of the universe.
>Earth being flat

LOL You do realize the ancient greeks with the work of Archimedes and Pythagoras knew the earth was round? I find it hilarious when idiots like you compare times when technology wasn't available to prove their theories right with now as if it makes any type of sensible argument. I think you're missing the ability to critically think.

lol you do realize that chart literally proves my point?

OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO SEE IT? DO YOU SEE HOW FAST THAT FUCKING GRAPH IS GOING UP? You literally have 0 knowledge in this and you\'re arrogant to think you know more than the scientist who do the research

i forgot they just want MUh carbon tax, youre right, don't trust science, go trust your politicians and articles from breibart instead.

Remind me what politics have done to humans in the last 100 years (literally everything but progress)

What do you think of higher IQ amongst Jewish people?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

>Sup Forums gets to talk to a biologist about actual science
>Some call him out for being CTR and DA JOOS

Wow, really makes you want to kill yourself.

he meant he has noticed you fucking idiot. YOu can't even make a deduction of meaning because of a fucking word you love to point out and then attack someone for "great argument from emotion".

Seriously, if you fucking used your stupid little brain you would have realized he meant that.

MAOA explains why they might be more predisposed to violence, but a lot of these genes are highly affected by epigenetic factors.

Eh, he's probably some drunken Brit or Scot.

Sure. If your not tenured a bad student review will hurt your career. Having a controversial view in the hard sciences isn't going to get you excommunicated. Having one where you have no data to back it up will.

>t. If you can actually show data that proves the climate scientists are wrong that's great
According to Karl Popper, data can only falsify a claim, it does not "prove" anything.
Unless you agree that induction leads to truth.

>I mean I could literally use your argument to defend astrology in modern times.
And it's perfectly reasonable from a philosophical standpoint. But if you blindly believe (have faith on) in the foundations of science, then it's not reasonable.

not if their data is legitimate and the conclusions that are drawn from the data are valid

scientists love to shit on each other, it'd literally be a scientist's wet dream to prove the scientific community completely wrong

>If your appealing to a group of relevant authorities it's no longer a fallacy.
sure it is, you are claiming that these people understand the siens, so we have to believe them, and there are a lot of them, so they must be true

do you know of any services similar to 23andme which doesn't hold the rights to my DNA?

I have a very interesting hypothesis that I would like you to explore.

It has to do with baldness and having boys as children. From what I've seen through correlations is that bald men have a higher likelihood of having boys as opposed to girls.

I'd really like to see a study on this but it's doubtful that it'd be paid attention to due to repercussions involving eugenics.

Probably solar activity. Or a major volcanic eruption. That doesn't disprove man-made climate change. That's like saying I know a guy who smoked tons and never got lung cancer therefore smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

I know you want to defend your religion no matter what. That's cool. But you didn't answer my question.

There was no industrial revolution during the medieval warm period, yet there was global warming. How do you explain that?

If the explanation is ''the sun'', then the explanation for the current climate change is also likely ''the sun''. Do you agree?

>don't think, feeel

the goy is clearly mentally deficient, or has accepted garbage facts and reasoning, which is pretty much the same thing

no it isn't

>so why did none of the cmip model predictions prove to be true by observation?
answer this

But it's not the scientist's wet dream to lose their carreer.

Any evidence that mental illnesses are strongly heritable?

With modern knowledge of biology, can we have eugenics that select specific traits that we deem profitable in the industrialized, information-based world?

I've done a lot of personal reading on these issues and overall most of the research on it is bullshit. A lot of the IQ averages you see for non-westerners or small groups are usually faked, fidgeted with, or have no reliable original source. Not saying there isn't an IQ difference, just saying that most of the research we base these assumptions are shit. We need newer more modern research.

On ashkenazi in particular their IQ has been somewhat exaggerated. A recent study (www-personal.umich.edu/~negisama/asdf2.pdf) showed that past research showing Jews had an average IQ of 115 were inaccurate. There sample size wasn't large and they selected smarter individuals. The recent study shows that the IQ is more around 107. Which is slightly higher than the average white IQ of 100, but not significant enough warrant consideration.

he indirectly did, you're just bad at comprehending

you're taking global warming just to mean "the earth is getting warmer". so yeah, there are large scale shifts like you see in the graph, and you see a fluctuation

but "global warming" as we refer to it refers to the rate of change of that warming, and the rate of change is alarming. researchers posit that the rate of change is due to things like carbon emissions - which have data from atmospheric sciences to prove that

Look up the CRISPR gene machine

there was a mathematician with an IQ of 126 who had hardly any discernible brain matter. his skull looked 90% empty on scans.

Makes it harder for them to find grant money, going against the grain. Also, peer reviewed research is biased to it's core. Environmental Scientist here, I know global warming is real, but the opposing sides that aren't funding by fossil fuel companies rarely get a chance.