I also have a bad attitude to what you are saying - worse, in fact.
You say physics and chemistry are the only deep uses of math, and illustrate that with a physics example to define "deep", and a biology example to define "shallow". That's not meaningful at all: it's circular logic (i.e. bad mathematics).
Without math, we would have a much poorer understanding of population biology. Your population biology example was from 1926 and the state-of-the-art has moved on - so you have badly represented the subject. I suggest that your personal understanding of biology is where the shallowness really lies.
The parent commenter has made a genuine effort to understand you and offer you some advice, despite your bullshit. You should thank them.
You say physics and chemistry are the only deep uses of math, and illustrate that with a physics example to define "deep", and a biology example to define "shallow". That's not meaningful at all: it's circular logic (i.e. bad mathematics).
Without math, we would have a much poorer understanding of population biology. Your population biology example was from 1926 and the state-of-the-art has moved on - so you have badly represented the subject. I suggest that your personal understanding of biology is where the shallowness really lies.
The parent commenter has made a genuine effort to understand you and offer you some advice, despite your bullshit. You should thank them.