>>13562273>This just speaks volumes about how crap biologists are at explaining. It is probably the lack of training in mathematical thinking, by the wayCongrats. This has got to be the most ironic post I've ever read here. It's so funny I don't even care if you're being serious or not.
>juggling stacks of definitions 10 layers tall, the fault lies with themWho said anything about this? You sure you aren't projecting? Let me explain a bit more clearly: The big issue mathfags have with biology (and the source of its beauty) is the fact that for every single thing there's always "buts" and "ifs". Whenever you think you've gotten it down to the most basic principle it turns out that things are more complex than they seem.
Take things like eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Every textbook tells you the difference is ones have a nucleus the other ones don't. Then it turns out the definition is more along the lines of "some have a *defined* (membrane-bound) nucleus, the others don't", then the moment this gets more or less accepted as a basic rule you start finding all sorts of bullshit organisms in the middle. You can't just change the definition because it works for most other stuff, so you end up having to add a provisional clause and start looking at secondary traits to classify said organisms as one or the other.
This happens ad infinitum. "Species" has no clear definition because every time someone tries to generalize he gets proven wrong. Acquired traits can't be inherited (except they actually can). Cell theory works (except it may not). Non-coding DNA doesn't affect gene expression (except it does).
