PhD in Biology AMA continued

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Filipchenko
youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

bump

Is there anything else than the "survival of the fittest" stuff you find that's full of shit?

You mentioned in your last thread that fitness was determined by number of offspring but forgot to include the "reaching reproductive age" clause. So I'm not sure I believe you.

Are you familiar with Abiogenisis? Do you agree with it? What are some problems if you are familiar with it? Do you think it is possible to figure out exactly the path from simple chemicals, polymers, self-replicating polymers, and protobionts?

To the other user, what do you mean by falsifiable alternative? Are you implying there is no proof for it? The Miller-Urey experiment is quite clear.

I usually find that Sup Forums places way to much emphasis on evo-psych. Which is weird because evo-psych is a pretty soft science at best.

bump

That's usually an assumed premise in the definition. Regardless, my claim assumed that when I was making it.

Do you anything of cryonics or any other techniques like cryogenics that may be able "revive" a person who has previously died at some point when technology allows it? Is it bunk science?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

Well, most of the stuff I found on it here seems sensible, like the stuff on why women/men behave differently. Didn't read that much about it though.

Abiogenesis is a really difficult field that is beyond my scope of knowledge. Part of the problem with it is that even if we could perform abiogenesis in a lab we still don't know for sure if that's what actually happened.

No one gives a shit unless it's race related.

Justify to me the notion that evolutionary processes would affect intelligence levels differently given different human populations evolving in disparate geographical locations.

That's the problem with evo-psych though. You can come up with multiple conflicting explanations for the same phenomenon that seem sensible. I mean psych is a pretty new field as it is. It's hard enough to make conclusions on current individuals let alone how human psychology evolved.

Why can't scientists prove macroevolution?

>Justify to me the notion that evolutionary processes would affect intelligence levels differently given different human populations evolving in disparate geographical locations.

Could you clarify the question a bit?

>Justify to me the notion that evolutionary processes would affect intelligence levels differently given different human populations evolving in disparate geographical locations.
you think all mammals have the same average IQ?

why?

Oh, also, people often say evolution doesn't justify social darwinism.
Isn't it at lease sensible to say that genetics mistakes that are harmful to a society, but still allows individuals to produce fertile offsprings, will pile up until you end up with a genetic pool that is completely fucked?

>Are you implying there is no proof for it?

not what non-fasifiable means

and no im not

the only NON-falsifiable origins are super natural causes

what CAN there be besides abiogenesis that is falsifiable?

Right yes they might seem like sensible theories, but the end they are just hypothesis that are yet to be supported by strong evidence.

Are you the same idiot who's denying man-made climate change? It all makes sense now.

Oh god what the fuck m8.

I can answer this one: because there's only one type of evolution and the distinction was made up by Christfags

>Isn't it at lease sensible to say that genetics mistakes that are harmful to a society, but still allows individuals to produce fertile offsprings, will pile up until you end up with a genetic pool that is completely fucked?

The hard part is deciding what's harmful. The dumbfuck chad with great looks and athletic ability or is it the brilliant wizard-aiutiste with an IQ of 160 who turns out tons of new inventions.

>doctor, please tell me in very explicit terms why I am right about everything and the dirty joos are wrong

I suppose that is true, however I feel what matters more is, is it possible? We may never know exactly how it happened, but a lack of evidence, is NOT evidence for the opposition - this it is false. There is enough reason to believe it did happen. The Miller-Urey Experiment proves that in the pre-biotic Earth, the environment could have created these first cells through this process. What we do know, is that we are here. And we know that the first life were prokaryotes. We know that prokaryotes don't just pop out of nothing. Through abiogenisis, it is possible to create these forms of life. What further supports it, is it ALL follows the laws in chemistry, meaning that it is not necessary for a metaphysical external force to make it happen. How do you feel about this? I know that it seems I'm parroting theists, but many theists fail to realize is what they believe possible. Through abiogenisis, it is indeed possible. But forever will remain ambiguous.

You convinced me that climate change is man-made. I'll pay the CO2 tax like a good goy, I promise. Can you answer my question, please?

not evo psych
youre confusing that with evo-neurology

cant?
you mean "cant YET"???

How does it feel knowing you are competing in an over saturated market both in industry and academics?
On a related note do you work and if so how did you score the job?

Sup OP

I agree fully with what you said about evolutionary fitness

How can I maximise my chances of having as many kids as possible? Should I just find some super religious girl? Or I could try and travel the world and fuck women, but many of them might get abortions

Also, don't you think it's a fucked up world where crack whores have a better chance of passing on their genes than PhDs? This is the society that liberals created and it's pure cancer.

I mean biological molecules are very simple. They are as uncomplex as they could possibly be. I mean all the genetic variation in the world is composed of only 4 nucleotides. This seems to follow from what we would expect chemically.

how much hotter than the 20th century average is the "hottst year in average"?

Say there wasn't a CO2 tax. Would you then believe in man made Climate Change

That's not true:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Filipchenko

Explain?

youre....... word order and choice leaves an irritating level of ambiguity/imprecision

Probably a mix of both. I agree going this far get's complicated, I was talking more about crohns, or hemophilia.
Oh well, got to wait till they polish crispr.

I'll believe whatever my scientific overlords tell me to believe. I wasn't taught critical thinking, so what do I know, right?

Yeah but not for people without a bio background

Nothing I suppose. Wouldn't we first need to find out is there any other way for the first cells to appear on Earth? I think I forgot what non-falsifiable meant, or misread your question. You are saying that the only way life can appear on Earth using evidence and reasoning IS abiogenisis? And nothing else?

Black Africans spent the last several hundred thousand years in a comfortable tropical climate with lots of easily attainable resources, such as timber for fuel and abundant food for hunting and gathering. Negroids were never exposed to an environment with the selective pressures conducive to fostering intelligence, like the Whites and Asians who had to constantly struggle to survive in harsh climates that favored forward thinkers.

I'm currently a post-doc applying for tenure track positions.

>How does it feel knowing you are competing in an over saturated market both in industry and academics?
It feels kind of hard. I wish they would place a limit on the number of PhD's allowed per year. I also wish low ranking schools were banned from giving out PhDs

psychology is the "software"
neurology is the "hardware"

nature vs nurture

No because it's fucking stupid. If the dead algae weren't fossilized, drilled/fracked and burned, their carbon would still return to the system

You are a pathetic excuse for a LARPER. I can't believe your shit made it to 2 threads. You got away with it before, but I'm here now. Time to get the fuck out and back to reddick you FUCKING faggot.

What else do you have in mind? You start off with simple molecules on a dead Earth, and end up with complex molecular machines. The logical thing to say is that those molecules slowly assembled into more and more complex structures over times.

>How can I maximise my chances of having as many kids as possible?
Why do you want to maximize it?

>Also, don't you think it's a fucked up world where crack whores have a better chance of passing on their genes than PhDs? This is the society that liberals created and it's pure cancer.
No it's the society wealth created. Wealthy conservatives also have less children. Children don't make sense economically when you are smart enough to practice safe sex and realize how much money they cost.

Hah. I know that feeling. Do you know how long it took for one of my scientists to land her current job? She's in her mid-40s and this is her first actual job.
All the PhDs I know can't find work so the advice I've given students is to avoid academics like the plague unless you're ok with advancing knowledge while being poor.

How the hell would it return? It's buried deep in the crust. It wont go back until it's melted in the mantle and release back out by volcanoes.

> I wasn't taught critical thinking
Explains a lot.

What are your thoughts on bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics? How do you think we can fix this? What could happen if we don't fix it?

True. My mistake.

Both evoneurology and evo-psychology are borderline psuedo-science at this point.

>it wont return until it returns
brilliant insight you fucking faggot. I have now discerned the nature of your faggot troll thread. Nice sockpuppet consensus you're building, but unfortunately you're still a FAGGOT

>Children don't make sense economically when you are smart enough to practice safe sex and realize how much money they cost.
BULLSHIT
BULLSHIT
BULLSHIT
All you're doing is parroting one leftist meme after another.

>triggered.jpg

>Why
Because that's the function of every single organism. It's the only reason I exist. You literally explained this in the last thread (although I have been thinking this for a year or two now)

What do you reckon? Sperm donation is something I've looked at too. I just want to spread my seed as far as possible - it's biological imperative, if you will.

>children cost money
...but what is the purpose of money other than allowing you to spread your seed further? It serves no other purpose

But the rate isn't constant you fucking retard.
The problem strictly speaking, isn't a warm climate, it's a changing climate.
How hard is this to get?

Nothing else I have in mind. Which is why I am a firm supporter of Abiogenisis. It makes sense. I was just trying to look for more insight from a Ph.D. Nothing new I learned. The fact that you describe Abiogenisis as such an extremely complex field really is discouraging. And makes me wonder why people that have never heard of it, question it and deny it without even any research.

>You are saying that the only way life can appear on Earth using evidence and reasoning IS abiogenisis?

without a supernatural origin, life in this universe had to form SOMEWHERE, at some point since the BB, from lone elemental lifeless inanimate matter, by chemistry specifically, by physics as we know it

I would tell most undergrads to only attend fully funded PhD programs and to only attend one in the top 15 of their respective field.

No worries. What is your area of focus?

They don't though. Kids in a pre and early industrial society were an income source. Nowadays they cost a shit-ton of money. The only reason to raise one now is because you desire to raise one.

Also most millenials and gen x won't have a livable wage until 30 let alone enough money to support a family.

evoneurology cannot be psuedoscience
it is concrete absolute
no more than can an MRI scan be "subjective"

Can eating nothing be a healthy diet if you take supplements to replace lost minerals or vitamins?
What is different for the body if you oxidate carbohydrates or protein instead of fat?

>Because that's the function of every single organism.
No it's not. Evolution just describes what's occurring. It doesn't make prescriptive claims. Science can never make prescriptive claims.

I dislike those that try to explain these questions WITH a supernatural origin. Might as well say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it all, no? I may not live to see it, but surely a bright mind in the future will end the memes forever.

temper young man

What do you think of bio-informatics?

Biggest lying kike on pol award.

Nice job faggot. No one believes you or your canadian sockpuppets.

GET OUT

>Sperm donation is something I've looked at too.
I always found the concept of this weird. Why use sperm donation. I mean if you want a child adopt. What do you gain from having a child naturally that isn't even natural to begin with.

what do meems have to do with any of this?

Can I get a double espresso and a bagel?
Thanks.

How come people there are still people who don't accept evolution? How should we deal with them?

I know it's a shame. It's not that complex honestly though, and that's coming from a degreeless faggot on the internet.
People have to understand it's not a cell "randomly" just being assembled by a bunch of molecules smashing together at some point in the Earth past. It's just molecules buildings structures they tend to be stable in, like small balls of lipids, combining together to make nice big sheets of lipids that eventually collapses together and produces something very similar to the double membrane of the cell, for instance.

memes as in theist claiming their metaphysical non-existent deity secretly doing it all.

I focus mostly on molecular genetics.

No, IT IS the function of every organism. It IS. That is biological FACT. You're right, it's not prescriptive. It's descriptive. It's a description of every organism in the world, including humans, that its ultimate function is to propagate itself as much as possible.

They have enough money in their 20s, they just spend it on stupid shit.

Anyway yeah, in your opinion how do I maximise the number of kids I have? I know that's not really a biology question but just in your opinion, what do you reckon is the best strategy?

>The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[16] While this claim is maintained on the vagueness of the undefined, unscientific term "kind", evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation or "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[17] In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.[18] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.

WAIT ARE YOU A CREATIONIST? LOL

neurology isn't subjective

evo-neurology is. Unless you got some neanderthal brains sitting around to be scanned.

You were taught critical thinking, so answer my question. Why can't scientists prove that we evolved from a fish?

youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ

I think it's the future. As biology becomes more driven I imagine a coding background will become increasingly more necessary.

What about it is a lie?

the point ive tried here is, unless you do get into the supernatural, and given the fact we are here and now alive in this universe, the cannot be anything except abiogenesis to describe what transpired between no life -----> life ; within the confines of our spacetime

People don't accept and deny ideas on their merits. They accept and deny based on their already existing values and beliefs and then use the merits to justify it.

>If you want a child adopt
You're supposed to be an evolutionary biologist and you you're telling me to raise another man's child like a cuckold? Why?

>What do you gain
My offspring, that's what I gain. And somebody else raises them which, as a man, is the greatest scenario possible. My genes pass to the next generation, meaning I have fulfilled my function as an organism. Preferably as many kids as possible result from my donated sperm.

>WAIT ARE YOU A CREATIONIST? LOL

Don't be silly. My great grandfather was a fish. LOL

Feelsbadman it's actually getting hard for those ones too. I wish you the best for that reason. Don't get stuck in a cycle of postdoc-ing like many of my colleagues!

Function is completely different from purpose. Purpose is a normative claim.

When are you going to answer my question?
---->86252430

I'm about to enter grad school for biology.

Do I have any hope of getting a decent paying job?

>They have enough money in their 20s, they just spend it on stupid shit.
Show me a 25 year old who has enough money to support a family and i'll show you a lottery winner, kid with rich parents, or a drug lord.

What do you have to say to creationist?

That is good to know. Im considering getting a bachelor in bio-informatics

LOL YOU THINK IS ME????? LOL YOURE THAT TOOTHPASTE IDIOT WHO THINKS THE SUN IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO MODERN CLIMATE CHANGE AYYYY LMAO.

He made that reference because he thought you were me , since I pointed out his inability to critically think.

lol here we gooooooo hahahhh

>why can't scientist prove we evolved from something when it most likely happened billions of years ago and there isn 't evidence observe lol ahha scientists are fucking idiots

Idk dude I mean the fact that all species do share some genetic information just means a creator made us right?

ahhahahah god youre fucking pathetic

You're the one who made that comment about CO2 sinking because of its density when you have literally 0 knowledge of fluid mechanics

you also accused me of being a communist because I called you a dirty capitalist.

You never answered my question, what is the difference between Fractional Reserve Banking and communism?

WAIT YOU THINK EVOLUTIONMEANS WE CAME FROM MONKEYS RIGHT?
HAHAHHAHA

YOURE SO FUCKIG STUPID ITS HILARIOUS

I completely agree.

>Why can't scientists prove that we evolved from a fish?
They have. Although they can't prove how someone without a brain is able to post on a Japanese image board.

Why are you on pol?

Did you watch the Dawkins video? Where is the proofs?

Trust me at my undergrad (ranked about 100 in the US) all of my Biology professors were from top 5 programs. Most didn't even have tenure.

Are the races equal?