>tfw /sci/ says molecular biology isn't a hard science

My mum studied that and she's a woman so it couldn't be that hard.

all science is either physics or stamp collecting

File: 1491619371076.png (114KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 256x256px

>>8835649

>>8835649

don't take life advice from 4chan

File: 1b1dd4c21329b6711371e30a8e20886caec8ba8d44398c91a35dc97ddd9188c3.png (11KB, 500x590px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x590px

hard |härd|
adjective
solid, firm, and resistant to pressure; not easily broken, bent, or pierced


Let us take a look at the average living thing, whether it is a single-cell or multi-cellular organism. After a cursory probing, chances are you would discover that the living (or previously-living) thing is something squishy, instead of hard. Thus, it would be nonsensical for the field dedicated to the study of such living things to be considered a "hard" science.

File: 1492380102082.jpg (167KB, 490x639px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 490x639px

>>8835692

File: 6b6.jpg (898KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 1280x960px

>>8835692
>He doesn't know about clam shells

>>8835649
Because it isn't.
Everything after Chemistry is derivative bullshit that can be explained with ideas based in Mathematics and Chemistry.

File: 1481437048223.png (208KB, 807x935px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 807x935px

>>8835698
It would at first appear as if you had found a flaw in my line of thinking. However, under further examination of the given arguments, it is clear that I was, in the end, still correct. Though I am certain there are already several brainlets that have been lead astray by your post, I will attempt to bring attention to the error in your reasoning.

It is not completely foolish to outright dismiss my claims by simply pointing out the existence of shells. However science is not about being satisfied with quick answers; rather it is about questioning what we think we know, diving into the depths of uncertainty to find gems of truth glistening at the bottom.

If one were to take this to heart and look within a clam shell, he would quickly see that the shell is simply a facade, an attempt to mask the delicate, gooey sack of mucus that constitutes the clam's true form. Ergo, not only does the clam exhibit the same squishy property of all other organisms, but it may well be one of the squishiest forms of life on Earth.

>>8835741
I shit in clam shells for breakfast.

File: tfw to intelligent.jpg (9KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 245x250px

>>8835741
But you forgot a key principle, my dear friend. The clam's shell will degrade once the clam has deceased, and become sand. Much of the ocean's sand is in fact, dead clams, and sand is a hard substance indeed. From this we can therefor say that clams are indeed a hard substance.

>>8835753
Define "Hard."
Silicon Dioxide is not hard when compared to, say, a diamond.

>>8835746
*unsheathes adductor muscle*
Nice try.

File: 1488540376657.jpg (225KB, 1036x1200px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1036x1200px

>>8835753
Whence does the clam shell come? The clam's squishy insides secretes the minerals that harden to form the protective cover.

The shell is an extension of the clam's body, yes. But only in the same sense that clothing or a smart phone is the extension of a person's self. The shell need not be squishy since it is not a living organ of the clam. It may grow, but the shell is "alive" in the same manner a stalagmite in a cave would be. The shell itself is not made up of living cells.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, old chum. But clams remain fundamentally gooey, and biology remains a squishy science.

>>8835801
Ah, but I still have one trick up my sleeve you see. You see kingdom animalia may have failed me, but kingdom fungi hasn't yet.

You see fungal cells are surrounded by a tough, and hard, layer of chitin around their plasma membrane. This allows fungal cells to be rigid while still being relatively thin, aiding them in forming colonies.

You have to memorize a lot. For some people it's hard, for some it's easy. I have a friend who is a math genius but can't do shit in molecular bio cause he has bad memory

>Molecular biology
>Use dozens of expensive, elaborate pieces of lab equpiment that take years of training to master
>Intricate experimental set-ups that often require sterile conditions, possibly involving deadly chemicals or organisms
>Operating on systems that are invisible to the naked eye, often even invisible to a light microscope

>Math
>Scribble some letters on a chalkboard


But please, go on about how math is the "hard" science.

>>8836821
Respect your elders, nigglet.

>>8836827
No. Math people are either neurotic, rude, or weird.

Molecular biologists and organic chemists are the Chads of the Faculty of Science.

>caring what the science section of a chinese cartoon discussion forum thinks about your career field

>>8836842
How dare you put Organic Chemists in the same degree of science as a molecular biologist.

You can't compare the two. Biology is fucking weak. Go poke at some fruit flies.

>>8835698
>shells are alive

If you're into self beating, try to be less obvious next time.

>Biology is fucking weak.

Well maybe 80 years ago that was the case but nowadays "biologists" are often engineering macromolecules or even entire microorganisms, both of these are systems that are far more complicated than what organic chemists create. Not that I'm saying it's "easier" to do one or the other, but there's still a lot of sophistication in genetic engineering.

File: derrrr.jpg (6KB, 300x161px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x161px

>>8836906
Not really - you can have simple algorithms construct different forms of DNA for whatever you want to accomplish.

You really think that one guy who made a bacterium REALLY did all that genetic coding by hand? No. He spliced most of it and then tweaked what he needed.

Again, Biology is not at all comparable in complexity OR fundamentality to Chemistry.

>>8835659
Kek

biology was a stamp collecting tier science for a long time, yes. but it has gotten a lot better.
the first revelation was of course darwin's natural selection. but brainlet biologists didnt accept it, but it did popularize evolution as a general concept. but darwins theory had a problem: it had no mechanism for inheritance.
next step was mendels work on genetics, but that wasnt noticed until early 1900s and brainlet biologists thought mendelianism refuted darwinism, lol. of course we know that mendelianism saved darwinism, because it gave a working mechanism for inheritance
fisher unified darwinism with mendeliansim in the 1910s with his population genetic theories, and mathematicized evolution he also developed statistical methods. further advancements were made by wright and haldane
in the latter half of 1900s, major discoveries were again made (dna!). population genetics were developed again by hamilton and maynard smith among others

it is a very serious science, although there is certainly brainletism among the life sciences, probably because of lax mathematical requirements

File: image.jpg (84KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 720x720px

>>8836842
>>8836852
Lmao chemist thinks non-living systems are hard to understand or even interesting.
Molecular empricuck thinks he is a Chad
Lmao have fun in the lab losers, theoretical ecology master race

>>8837444
Non-living systems can be much more difficult to understand than living mechanisms - there's just less error than living systems, which makes non-living superior.

Theoretical Ecologist = Supreme Cuck

>>8835649
wtf I'm dropping out now?!

the retards here who call biology easy go on to name concepts used in evolutionary/ecology biology and ignore those in micro/molecular bio/genetics/immunology etc.

>>8835739
>>8836852
What about biochemistry?

File: die.png (72KB, 283x268px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 283x268px

>>8835739
>the cut off is my preferred science of choice

I laugh at organic chemists who can't even produce the more complex chemical structures. We relie on microorganisms, created by molecular biology, to make them for us.

>>8838827
>We relie on microorganisms, created by molecular biology
You're not this stupid, are you?

>>8838808
>What about biochemistry?
I consider biochemistry to be a derivative of chemistry, just like organic. It's still much more fundamental in nature than biology.

>>8836847
This

>>8838944
Namefag, your contribution to this thread has been shit honestly. You have shamelessly shilled your own major as if anyone gives a fuck, drawing arbitrary cutoffs which perpetuate the meme of sciences being valuable insofar as they are seen as "hard", and to top it off, you made these posts
>>8835746
>>8835762
which tried to derail something genuinely funny. 0/10, do better next time

>>8839240
Psssh nothin personal kid

>>8839240
>major
>not automatically assuming I'm a neet LARPing out my narcissistic fantasies
Wew lad

>>8838944
So you don't get what I mean with that?

>>8835692
>hasn't heard of turtles
man what the fuck

>>8835649
>>8835698
>>8836821
>>8836847
>>8836906
>>8838810
>>8839585
Whom are you quoting?

File: 1492610015257 (1).jpg (31KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x404px

>>8840030

>>8840030
return to /prog/

>oh wait, you can't