• axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      48 seconds ago

      yeah i have a bachelor’s in chemistry and I remember a professor earnestly saying the phrase “metallic phase nitrogen” and I think I went home and stared at the ceiling for an hour

  • serenissi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 hours ago

    though the meme is cool, gender isn’t particularly a biology (or ‘advance biology’) thing. biology deals with sexes, their expressions and functionalities. gender is more of a personal and social concept but often related to sex characteristics (cis).

    and yes, advanced biology tells sex determination isn’t as easy as XX or XY or even looking at genitals like a creep.

    and oh, for giggles consider fungi :)

    • oyfrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Adding to this: XX and XY works for mammals, but not for other vertebrates (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians). Birds and reptiles have Z and W chromosomes, and unlike in mammals where females are homozygotes, males in these groups are homozygotes. Some reptiles have temperature dependent sex determination, where ambient temperature above some value will produce males or females (depends on species). Some reptiles are composed entirely of females.

      Some fish will straight up change sexes depending on age and male-female ratio in a social group.

      In other groups it’s not even different chromosomes but simply copy number of specific genes.

      Plants can do all sorts of whacky things like produce seeds and pollen in the same individual.

      Fungi are an entirely different cluster fuck because they have mating types which are not simple binaries.

      Eukaryotic sex determination isn’t a binary and it isn’t even a nicely categorizable spectrum. It’s a grab-bag of whatever doesn’t perma-fuck your genome.

      Source: me, I’m a biologist. Though admittedly I work on animals so my understanding of fungi and plant stuff is fuzzy at best.

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    So true and it’s a great to remind them of that sort of thing.

    You know, you’d think all of the people who say it’s purely down to genetics would be natural allies with, you know, molecular biologists (applied genetics). They’d be all like “it’s a Y chromosome or nothing” and the biologists would be all like “yeah chromosomes!” because we fucking love chromosomes but no. In fact, it’s noticeably absent when you start to think about it.

    I wonder why that might be?

    The short answer is “because it’s infinitely more complicated than that.”

    Just because you carry the genetic code for anything at all, it doesn’t mean you’ll express it. The default setting for our DNA is off. So, if something isn’t telling it to transcribe, it won’t do it. A whole load of reasons could cause that, even before we get to mutations and partial expression or chimeras etc.

    Anyway, what i mean is yeah, this meme!

    Edit: also, don’t beleive the AI. Early fetuses are female, until the Y is activated. You could have an inactivated Y and the fetus could be a woman capable of having children. The default setting is female, not intersex. It could be either but unless a specific event happens, it will always be female. It’s a subtle but important difference. This means that all fetuses are female and then turn into a male.

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    7 hours ago

    When Newton worked out the laws of motion, he figured they had to be correct because they were so simple and elegant.

    He had no idea that relativity was going to come in and fuck his shit up.

  • gjoel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Honestly, people would probably object more to advanced math than advanced biology if they were exposed as much to it. Or basic math. Or elementary math…

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The problem is those morons haven’t taken any of the advanced classes and probably got D’s in the basic ones.

  • Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Always wear your glasses. Sans glasses, I read the Advanced Math panel saying the square root of -1=1, and thought, “that’s doesn’t sound right.”

  • m8052@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Sqrt(-1) is still wrong tho. I’m commuting a sin by writting it. Correct expression is i^2=-1

    • Ethanol@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Indeed, usually you would want to avoid a notation of sqrt(-1) or (-1)^(1/2). You would use e^(1/2 log(-1)) instead because mathematicians have already decided on a “natural” way to define the logarithm of complex numbers. The problem here lies with choosing a branch of the logarithm as e^z = x has infinitely many complex solutions z. Mathematicians have already decided on a default branch of the logarithm you would usually use. This matters because depending on the branch you choose sqrt(-1) either gives i or -i. A square-root is usually defined to only give the positive solution (if it had multiple values it wouldn’t fit the definition of a function anymore) but on the complex plane there isn’t really a “positive” direction. You would have to choose that first to make sure sqrt is defined as a function and you do that via the logarithm branch.
      So, just writing sqrt(-1) leaves ambiguity as you could either define it to give i or -i but writing e^(1/2 log(-1)) then everyone would just assume you use the default logarithm branch and the solution is i.

    • msfroh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      But (-i)^2=-1 as well. So we still need a convention to distinguish i from -i.

      • m8052@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Square root definition does not allow a negative number as an input. Only positives and zero. Although it is possible to expand the definition to negative numbers, complex numbers, matrices… So unless you followed a course where you thoroughly defined your expansion of sqrt, it only applies to real, positives number and zero. Its the thing with math, you have to define what you work with.

        In my case, I did prep courses for entrance exam to engineering schools (something like in dead poet society but more modern), using sqrt(-1) somewhere would be an instant 0 mark. Like forgetting a unit in a physics test answer.

      • Opisek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        No. The symbol √ signifies the principal square root of a number. Therefore, √x is always positive. The two roots of x, however, are ±√x. If you therefore have y²=x and you want to find y, you mustn’t write y=√x, but rather y=±√x to be formally correct.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Nah, sqrt(x) is the principal branch (the one with a positive real part) of x^½, and you can do (-1)^½ because it’s just exponentiation.