M.D.s and physiologists
unending fraud and deceit to secure grants [stem cells]
See above. a history of eugenics and genocide
Genocidal biologists? Surely you jest!
a tendency to produce monsters who use their science to justify their monstrosity [Mengele, Singer, and now this guy]
Mengele was a physician. Singer is a philosopher. Got ignorance?
low intellectual standards [to a math major, biology classes constitute an easy semester; to bio majors, nontrivial math classes are unthinkable]
Our math major is 38 required credit hours. Most science majors are 70+. People take math double majors because they're easy double majors, if you're in physics or chemistry.
low academic standards [failure is publishable].
Have you ever tried to get a biology paper published? if not, what do you know?
Fortunately, I know quite a number of mathematicians, and so I can attest that the shallowness and the utter ignorance evident in your post is by no means typical of your field.
Doing the work that biologists aren't willing to do. "Physiologists"? How fine a hair do you want to split?
Mengele was a physician. Singer is a philosopher.
I didn't figure you'd split hairs with Mengele, but I can't believe you don't know Singer's field. Can you find out the name of the field in which Singer has "eminence"?
Genocidal biologists? Surely you jest!
Are you aware of how the Nazis justified their "scientific" conclusions? They were fond of publishing in newspapers comparisons of the various races. Unflattering to the most un-German races, of course. All scientific, all biological, with lineups of skulls and everything. And the subject of the thread is a biologist by trade. His ecology is really just an avocation.
Find your favorite undergrad. Say that in order to round out his or her education, a course with proofs should be taken. Report back the look on the students' face.
Have you ever tried to get a biology paper published?
Actually, I managed to obliterate a question on comparability of consensus trees, but the proof technique is a little technical. It has to do with pseudorandomness in graphs. Actually, the biologicial question was quite trivial. It was necessary to generalize the question to make it interesting.
Fortunately, I know quite a number of mathematicians, and so I can attest that the shallowness and the utter ignorance evident in your post is by no means typical of your field.
Alternatively, they could be humoring you, like one would a small child.
Or a puppy.
That was over the top, but if you keep throwing 70mph fastballs, I am going to keep swinging for the fences.