>However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022.https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/RIP VaxxiesWe tried to warn you.
>>16132428>>>/pol/ with your alt med schozo bullshit
>>16121398Where's the increase?
>>16131574>OMG you're heckin persecutin me>I'm literally Assange even though the only evidence I can muster is shitty articles from predatory journals peer reviewed in 2 days and conspiracy websitesWhy must you faggots always confuse persecution with not accepting you're bullshit beliefs?Oh yeah I know why. It's because anti vaxxers backed themselves into a corner, and now the vaxxed MUST be dying off en masse or they'll look like a bunch of cultist idiots.Literally just 2 more weeks.
>>16121398666 was all over the vaccine. In the news articles, in the upvotes for redit posts (6666 comments). God has also been ass raping me with apparitions, this started in 2020 with the Vax rollout. I'm Jewish, we've got a really serious problem bud, and it's the ass raping murderer in the sky
>>16131574/sci/'s daily post rate is off quite a bit over the past few years. where did they all go? into their graves dead of the clotshot?
Do babies really scream during abortions?
>>16129302Based psycho doc. You are literally getting paid for killing babies kek.
>>16132966Read any abortion thread on reddit and count how many man copy and paste the "Your Body Your Choice" answer
Thank you science for inventing the wonderful and beneficial process of murdering unborn babies. You're so beneficial and wonderful, what would we do without you?
>>16133137>Mental illness is the trait of leftistsThe only conclusion then is that you are clearly a leftist
>>16129302This thread is honestly an embarrassment on a board that's allegedly about "science".
F
Literally who
>>16133971>Da Costa's international recognition came especially through his work on paraconsistent logic and its application to various fields such as philosophy, law, computing, and artificial intelligence.[2] He is one of the founders of this non-classical logic.[3] In addition, he constructed the theory of quasi-truth that constitutes a generalization of Alfred Tarski's theory of truth, and applied it to the foundations of science.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_da_Costa
Newton has been dead for centuries
which map projection is /sci/ approved?
>>16133274a table is kind of inconvenient to wrap around a globe
>>16132779>bro here's your planet to exist on it's so autistic it can't be accurately represented in 2dfucking creator...
>>16132779plate carree
>>16133274Do you not have a phone?
Gall-Peters is the only equitable projection
Will academia get better or worse as time goes on? If worse, what should intelligent people do?
>>16126696>0.00001% most intelligent>excludes 99% of /sci/That actually speaks really highly of /sci/.
>>16128771This.Academia is for midwits
>>16126163>what should intelligent people do?they should be intelligent to figure that out for themselves
>>16132115intelligent people already understand that academia is for midwits
>>16126696>research institutions will always hire the 0.00001% most intelligent portion of the populationnope, they hire the most compliant because they want obedient employees
>You have 2000 physicists at CERN and not one of them is famous because they haven't done anything originalHow do you respond without sounding like a CERN physicist?
>>16132535tsmt
>>16129222>>16129161Evokutionary Biologist here, no.Just no, it does care, as technology has a direct effect of the organism and all of its functions, cryborgization already happened.......you slept through it, now youre in it.https://youtu.be/PFmAliV1lUA
>>16129160In a sense it is correct, though. Evolution and natural selection are always occuring, so you're right about that, and you're also correct that selection pressure don't effect mutation rates (although they certainly effect whether mutations are eliminated from a population). Even in the absence of ecological limiting factors or high mortality rates, selection can still occur. In such cases, the selection effects are primarily driven by differential reproduction rather than differential fitness. So even if everyone has all their needs met and all the resources they could desire, selection still continues to act - albeit as a result of differences in fertility and number of offspring, rather than a result of dying prematurely. That being said, Dutton's argument is also kind of correct for three reasons: (1) We have the fundamental theorem of natural selection which says that the rate of change in fitness in a population is proportion to the mean variation in fitness. This implies that a population with less variability in fitness will actually evolve at a slower rate. Relating this specifically back to human evolution, this implies that if all of our needs are met, we have simple easy live, and most people reach a relatively comparable level of achievement (what in socioeconomic contexts we might describe as something like "equity"), then the variance in fitness in such a population will likely be relatively small - few people are extremely unfit. In these circumstances, such a population would indeed evolve at a slower rate. That's not really speculation or opinion - just an immediate consequence of Fisher's fundamental theorem: a population with less variance in fitness will evolve at a slower rate. However, that still leaves open the question of how much "equity" or variance the human population really exhibits. . . . . . (continued)
>>16129160(Continued from >>16134114) (2) Dutton's argument could be stated somewhat more pedantically. Selection and evolution never stop occuring, and in fact selection is actually what drive the "mutants" to take over on Dutton's account. In particular, if a population is provided with a limitless supply of any resources they might want, then this can select for individuals that have a higher fertility rates and for loss-of-function mutations. These are very common and important type of beneficial mutation that occurs when a particular phenotypic trait is no longer needed. The reason such mutations are beneficial is that maintaining a particular phenotypic trait often require energy and resources, so if the trait is no longer needed it will be beneficial to lose the trait. This is very common when organisms develop new diets, e.g. Vultures, for example have very strong stomach acid anddigestive enzymes because they eating rotting carcasses. If, however, vultures start consuming another less unsanitary food source, then they will quickly acquire mutations that prevent them from producing these concentrated stomach acids and enzymes, since doing so is a large metabolic burden. Such loss-of-function mutations are well-documented and well understood, and have played a crucial role in evolution and ecology throughout the history of life on earth (I can provide more details and citations if needed). A more accurate way to describe Dutton's model is therefore that it involves not the absense of evolution or selection, but rather individuals being selected for loss-of-function and higher fertility. . .. . . (continued)
>>16129160(Continued from >>16134114 (You))(Continued from >>16134116)(3) Dutton's argument does NOT require an increase in mutation rates as you suggest. As you correctly point out, there is no reason to think that a change in selection pressure would produce a change in mutation rates. The mutation rate will stay the same. Rather, what changes is the probability that a given mutation persists indefinitely or even achieve fixation in the population. In the absence of selection, more mutants will survive to reproduce even if the mutation rate remains fixed. Just to be clear, I don't actually endorse this sort of "weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men" narrative simply because we don't actually have any prior example of technologically advanced civilizations to look to for evidence. My point concerns the feasibility of the model and the relationship between mutation and selection, not whether the model provides an accurate description of some of the contemporary social, economic, and psychological problems that have arisen in 21st century society.
New cultist cope just dropped
>>16132645I'm American. Our Arabs live north of us. They'll flee into Canada if anywhere.
>>16132488>Yes. Yes I haveYour phrasing indicates you're lying, as does your lack of specific example.
>>16124115And.Nothing,Of.Value.is. Lost.
>>16129400None of the predictions that they have made have ever come true. If science has predictive power then """climate science""" isn't science, its just something that dishonestly uses the word "science" in it's name to confuse people and trick into thinking its legitimately scientific
>>16124104>statesGeographical expressions really
you couldn't have accomplished what they did
>>16130000You should swipe my massive Jewish fists into your head while you're at it
>>16130000
>>16112119you got it backwards
>>16132133If negroes could read they'd be offended at what you posted.
>>16087022soientists don't create useful inventions, the idea that they do is just a myth. soientists publish replication crisis articles in journals nobody reads, they don't have any useful skills
The father of modern AI has spoken. Qualia doesn't exist. LLMs are sentient. You're not that special.
>>16129478>>16129486NPCs that don't have internal consciousness
>>16130870Your premises are dubious and so is the conclusion even if we assume the premises are true. Even if we cannot ourselves create "souls", it could plausibly be the case that a loose soul from somewhere will inhabit whatever suitable vessel appears. I mean, wouldn't that be how conception and childbirth also worked?
>>16133038Yes it is by definition.
>>16133087We refer to qualia nearly 24/7 in conversations with other people. If you eat a burger and don't like it, and leave a bad review online saying it tasted shitty, that is making a statement about qualia; the subjective experience of displeasure when eating it for whatever reason. Are you serious?
>>16133777Possibly. I've seen people like this on YouTube, too. Either they're soulless meat automaton humans or literal bots; I think the first option is more likely since bots are designed for specific jobs, and posting about how they're not conscious is probably not one of them.
Is Coca Cola really a healthier beverage than milk?
>>16091579>Is Coca Cola really a healthier beverage than milk?No, its not, maybe water is healthier than milk but there is no fucking way a beverage with twice the daily intake free sugars is healthier than milk.
>>16091579Coca Cola can clean the acid off of battery hookups, let that sink in before you think any further.
>>16091821You got so fucking wrecked, never post here ever ever again.
All of you coke faggots I challenge you: Boil coca cola on a pan and be sure to view how much sugar is left behind.
>>16132883At least its useful for something
NOAA admits that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and has no effect on the climate. According to NOAA:>The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is comparable to around>4.3 million years ago, when sea level was about 75 ft higher than today,>the average temp was 7 degrees F higher than in pre-industrial times, &>large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra. Which is to say that even though CO2 is the same now as it was 4.3 million years ago, the climate today is far, far different and much colder than it was 4.3 million years ago and this is because atmospheric CO2 levels have no effect or undetectably little effect on the Earth's climate. Its also worth noting that atmospheric CO2 levels have been substantially above where they have been in the recent past for over 100 years now and there has been no substantial change in the climate during that time, which only further proves NOAA's assertion that CO2 doesn't affect the Earth's climate and that CO2 is not a meaningful greenhouse gas.
>>16117641Its nice of them to finally admit it
>>16128609everywhere on the planet warms up during the day and cools off at night. if CO2 were a greenhouse gas then the reduced rate of cooling at night due to CO2 would be measurable. instead it still cools off at night, just as much as ever, because CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16130867A lie is not a non sequitur my nigger
>>16132913It is in this case.
>>16117641Thats quite a change, I wonder what it was that finally made them come around?
Good news everyone, Arctic ice accumulation is above average for this time of year compared to the average for this century so far. Seems like the global warming doomsday scenarios that so many scientists have been predicting aren't coming true, isn't that great news? I know you're ecstatic to hear it, especially the people who are so concerned about the environment, they should be extra happy to see this good news.
>>16130879>>16130975>>16130993No response? Pathetic.
>>16130975>>16130993>wikipediayou're pretty much admitting you have no education on the topic if thats your only reference. you just went with the inevitable first search engine result and declared yourself an expert after reading two sentences of it in class dunning kruger fashion. >Let's pretend that plants violate thermodynamicsyou've never even passed freshman level thermodynamics
>>16132962By failing to form a cogent argument you're pretty much admitting you have no education on the topic.Try harder, you pathetic faggot.
>>16089049Global warming isn't real
>>16134102Retard take
Good news everyone, it turns out that plants like CO2. How come scientists never discovered this until recently? Seems like it should be big news, but they never talk about it.
>>16132064https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0ARggsQWA
>>16116672this shit makes me laugh so hard the oxygen content of my blood has significantly depleted
>>16130409the Ganges is truly the greenest river on the planet!
What's happening to all the bugs tho?Are we just overusing pesticides?Have they evolved to avoid humans/civilization better?
>>16132971
Cherry blossoms bloom in Tokyo, 15 days later than last year, 5 days later than averagehttps://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/03/29/japan/society/cherry-blossoms-bloom-tokyo/Cherry blossoms finally burst into bloom in Tokyo on Friday after heavy rain in the morning, marking the latest blooming in over a decade.The declaration of the blooming made by the Meteorological Agency came 15 days later than last year and five days later than in an average year. Private forecasters had also expected this year's bloom to come much earlier.Friday’s blooming is the latest in Tokyo since 2012, when cherry blossoms were declared to have blossomed on March 31, according to the agency.Cherry blossom forecasting is big business in Japan. As early as in January, companies start to issue forecasts for when cherry blossoms will first bloom and reach their peak.The weather agency, which began forecasting the annual bloom in 1955, sets a government standard for observing cherry blossom trees. For consistency, the meteorological agency only uses data gathered from the Somei-Yoshino variety, which produces pale pink blossoms.
>>16133560+15 points for me!lol, racking them up!
>>16132931>>16133007
>>16105956Check out europe dumdumBeggining of april blossem everywhere
>>16133914Seethe
>>16133908See>>16133543
What was his peak IQ realistically?
115... Vivek though? Easily 140-150. Probably one of the most intelligent people to ever run for president.
I was dating a girl with a confirmed IQ of 135, it made me extremely envious. But it feels like she'd get so much further if she wasn't so naive and virtuous (by today's standards if you will). But we are both young so maybe she'll become more cut throat, especially since she is in an academic/professional field where cut throat people are probably the most ubiquitous (other than high finance).
>>16129853>Children's showNice cope, but the show is literally labeled as "Not intended for children"
>>16130739>"Mr.Trump, What's your priority among our nuclear triad? Which of the 3 legs?"Trump: "huh? Well, uh, first of all! I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible; who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important. And one of the things that I'm frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you're going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it! I called it very strongly! And it was very important! But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear... Nuclear changes the whole ball game! Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out -- if we didn't have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can't just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn't care. It was hand-to-hand combat. The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming, which is inconceivable, this is what he's saying! The biggest problem we have is nuclear -- nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon! That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now. I think -- I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me!">"Mr.Trump what in the hell are you talking about? Just answer the question without going on an extended incoherent non-sequitor rant. Of the three legs of the triad, sir, do you have a priority?">"HUH? WHAT? Look I already did answer your dumb question, loser, when I said Nuclear is VERY powerful!! Okay?">"..."Triple digit Trump IQ theory formally debunked, sad
>>16133001>I come to 4chan to defend George Bush Jr. from criticism
