Life of Cells -- Poll

[valich]

But we're not talking about the informal sense, as a theory would be a hypothesis in the informal sense. Nowdays theories do not "graduate" into laws.

Well, anyways, this is why they make the sistinction between a theory and a law.

Spurious: We're talking about the scientific method in general: asking questions > forming a hypothesis > experiments to test the hypothesis > theory > multiple experimentations by others > law.

I've always contended that the laws of thermodynamics, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, help explain evolutionary processes. Also there's Mendel's laws: the law of segregation and the law of independent assortment.

 

[leopold]

that is also my take. 3+2=5 is a fact not a theory,the sun rises in the east is a fact not a theory,women giving birth to babies is a fact not a theory. on the other hand intelligent design is a theory and abiogenesis has not been solved.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

on the other hand intelligent design is a theory and abiogenesis has not been solved.

Intelligent design is not a theory!!!!

ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up as science. It fools people into thinking that it is a legitimate scientific theory by using the language of science and by studiously avoiding references to God and the Bible. But if you strip away these fake-science outer layers then ID simply boils down to the unscientific conclusion that life was created rather than having evolved naturally. If life didn’t evolve via natural mechanisms, then this supposed creation must be by a supernatural entity, be it God or whatever. Assigning supernatural causes to natural phenomena is not testable and, therefore, is outside the scientific method and is outside science. That is not science, it is religion.<P>

 

[leopold]

from a lay point of view:
i beg to differ. since abiogenesis has not been solved. then everything from natural causes to my grandmas twat is a possibility. id is a possibility. just because someone says it's ridiculous doesn't exclude it. granted natural causes makes a lot more sense than id, still abiogenesis has not been solved. therefore id is one theory amoung many not 2 but at least 3 or more as to how we got here. sorry hercules i don't mean to make you mad and i am not being a hardhead but i an objective open to all possibilities including the one "non of us are here"

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Also there's Mendel's laws: the law of segregation and the law of independent assortment.

which AREN'T TRUE by the way.
scientists have found out about crossing over and transposons and all this other stuff.

that is also my take. 3+2=5 is a fact not a theory,the sun rises in the east is a fact not a theory,women giving birth to babies is a fact not a theory. on the other hand intelligent design is a theory and abiogenesis has not been solved.

well, your take is wrong. ID is not a theory, or a hypothesis, or even a scientific idea. ID does NOT have a single atomic particle of science in it. And that's not a theory, that's a fact. (lol... IT'S A JOKE! don't take that and say "oh see you said theories and facts are different!" because I didn't!)

i beg to differ. since abiogenesis has not been solved.

abiogenesis itself i think would be a theory... that life came from nonlife... (that is just my opinion)... but exactly HOW that life arose is a HYPOTHESIS.

then everything from natural causes to my grandmas twat is a possibility

no it isn't. not scientifically speaking. look, science has certain rules. if it says something that can't be experienced in some way, it's not science. If it's not natural, it's not science. That's just how it is.

id is a possibility.

no it isn't. From all the evidence science has gathered over the last i dunno how many years, we know that fish don't just pop out of thin air. THAT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN! You could even say ID has been disproven, as it goes against pure simple physics... it goes against science itself.

therefore id is one theory amoung many not 2 but at least 3 or more as to how we got here.

have you been ignoring my posts AGAIN? look... this is science, that's religion, english, and everything else. they are two completely different things. and look at the title at the top? we're in a scientific forum. We're talking about science here, not english! a theory does not mean one retarded idea some stupid idiot came up with a million years ago!
we have to beat that into your head somehow. Maybe national geographic can do it.

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

- the "was darwin wrong" issue of the national geographic magazine... or http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html

sorry hercules i don't mean to make you mad and i am not being a hardhead but i an objective open to all possibilities including the one "non of us are here"

Yes you are being a hardhead.
Look... ever heard the expression "too much of a good thing is a bad thing"? being open to ALL possibilities and stuff is just stupid. Ok, in a philosophical sense it's good, but in a practical sense it's just stupid. personally if you go around seriously trying to telling people that god destroys the universe every tuesday at 3:25 PM and then rebuilds it exactly how it left off in tuesday at 3.25.00000000000000000000000000001 PM, i am going to call 911 and send you to a mental institutuion because you're a danger to society.
yes, it's a possibility and crap, but seriously being open to it is just retarded.


There comes a point in every boy's life, where he should be able to tell fantasy from reality.


(note I said should... obviously with so much religion not nearly everyone is able to do that )

 

[valich]

that is also my take. 3+2=5 is a fact not a theory,the sun rises in the east is a fact not a theory,women giving birth to babies is a fact not a theory. on the other hand intelligent design is a theory and abiogenesis has not been solved.

No, there's a difference here. Facts such as you describe above contribute to the formation of a theory: the theory tries to explain why these facts happen. This is part of the scientific method: we use observed facts to develop a theory. Then when that that theory is proven over-and-over again and proven by multiple expirements under any and all possible and conceivable situation, that is when it becomes a law. This is the reason for the difference between a theory and a law. Nevertheless, there are always still facts.

 

[valich]

Again, if there is an argument between abiogenesis and creationists, and if the creasionists say that there is a "guiding intelligence," then anything an evolutionist has to say can be justified by the creationists' beliefs by stating that: "but that was caused by the guiding intelligence." So then it ends in a circular argument. Everything and anything that an evolutionist has to say can be countered by the creationists' viw that that was due to a "guiding intelligence." So what's the point? It's just a semantic argument over the use of words with no difference in facts that we observe and prove.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

which AREN'T TRUE by the way.
scientists have found out about crossing over and transposons and all this other stuff.

What?!?! :bugeye: In what ways are Mendels Laws not true? Of course they are. Crossing over can affect allele segregation but does nothing to invalidate Mendels Laws, and transposons have nothing whatsoever to do with Mendel’s Laws.<P>

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

What?!?! In what ways are Mendels Laws not true? Of course they are.

not if you take what mendel actually said. For example, with dominance... incomplete dominance and codominance go against what mendel said. His laws are true for the specific traits of the specific plants he chose, but they're not true all the time.

Crossing over can affect allele segregation but does nothing to invalidate Mendels Laws, and transposons have nothing whatsoever to do with Mendel’s Laws.

Mendel thought that every single genetic trait was inherited separately all the time (mendel's law of independent assortment). We now know that some genes are on the same chromosome and are therefore often inherited together... depending how far apart they are they are inherited more or less often together. Other genes move around in the genome so their inheritance patterns also differ i guess
and sex linked traits are also more complex and stuff...

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Mendel thought that every single genetic trait was inherited separately all the time (mendel's law of independent assortment). We now know that some genes are on the same chromosome and are therefore often inherited together...

Yeah, but that doesn’t invalidate the laws that Mendel did manage to deduce for non-linked alleles. Mendelian ratios (such as 3:1, 1:1, 9:3:3:1, and 1:1:1:1) are verified every day for all sorts of organisms in labs all over the world. I verify it myself on a daily basis. It’s a fact that equal segregation and independent assortment are fundamental hereditary processes found throughout nature. Mendel's laws are not merely laws about peas, but laws about the genetics of eukaryotic organisms in general (just not a complete set of laws. )

not if you take what mendel actually said. For example, with dominance... incomplete dominance and codominance go against what mendel said. His laws are true for the specific traits of the specific plants he chose, but they're not true all the time.

Yes, that’s very true but I think you are being unfairly pedantic.

It is true that variation between most organisms varies more or less continuously over a range. Mendel obtained his simple results because he worked with varieties of the garden pea that differed from one another by single allelic differences that had drastic phenotypic effects. Had Mendel conducted his experiments on the natural variation of the weeds in his garden, instead of abnormal pea varieties, he would probably never have discovered Mendel's laws. In general, size, shape, color, physiological activity, and behavior do not assort in a simple way in crosses.

BUT……… once again I would say that this doesn’t invalidate Mendel’s Laws. Mendel assessed everything on the basis of his simple pea phenotypes without knowing anything about the existence of genes and chromosomes. Although he didn’t know it, what Mendel really discovered was how alleles are passed between generations. And whilst co-dominant traits, sex-linked traits, sex-limited traits, epigenetic traits, additive traits etc etc etc all result in different phenotypic ratios to Mendel’s’ simple ones, the underlying distribution of alleles from parents to offspring that produce these complex continuous traits are exactly as Mendel had deduced using his peas (except for sex-linked traits). <P>

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

how about this... mendel's laws, as stated, aren't always true, meaning that they're not fully true.
Happy?

 

[valich]

Mendel thought that every single genetic trait was inherited separately all the time (mendel's law of independent assortment). We now know that some genes are on the same chromosome and are therefore often inherited together... depending how far apart they are they are inherited more or less often together. Other genes move around in the genome so their inheritance patterns also differ i guess
and sex linked traits are also more complex and stuff...

Mendel's laws are laws under the conditions that he experimented with that you describe above: under the boundaries that were deliniated then. Under Mendel's scientific conditions: they are laws. Now we have elaborated on genetic inheritance and mutations. We've expanded the field to the point that his laws no longer apply to what we have expanded it to, but they are still laws under his physical experiments. The same thing goes for Newton's Law of Gravity and Laws of Motion (inertia). They are applicable to traditional physics on earth, but not applicable to Einstein's expanded Theory of Relativity in the universe.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Happy?

<P>

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Alpha is right.

Mendel's law only worked for the plants he was using. If he happened to use another one that uses recombination the 'law' is simply not applicable. And we are not talking about a minority or rarity here. Mendel was lucky he discovered the 'law'.

It would be similar to Newton discovering gravity because an apple hits on his head. But the next apple floats in mid air or is displaced sideways, but is disregarded for the sake of 'the law'.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Mendel's law only worked for the plants he was using.

If you're referring to this statement -- "mendel's laws, as stated, aren't always true, meaning that they're not fully true" -- then, yes, AlphaWolf is correct.

I will re-state what I said above. Mendel's Laws are not wrong and are not soley applicable to peas. Mendelian phenotypic ratios are verified every day for all sorts of organisms in labs all over the world. I use a variety of zebrafish mutant lines that display perfect Mendelian inheritance of mutant phenotypes. It’s a fact that equal segregation and independent assortment are fundamental hereditary processes found throughout nature. Mendel's laws are not merely laws about peas, but laws about the genetics of eukaryotic organisms in general (just not a complete set of laws).

It's plain silly to reduce this to a semantic argument about the precise definition of the word "law". Mendel's "laws" may not be laws in the strict scientific sense of the word, but that doesn't detract from their applicability.<P>

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Sure they are applicable in particular cases.

can we now be silly and tell valich that Newtons laws aren't all laws either?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Sure, let's get nuts!

Actually, perhaps someone could tell me what is the strict definition of a "law"? I've never been too sure about that and I'm too lazy to Google it...<P>

 

[leopold]

according to wiki and alpha there are no "facts" only theories. when something comes along to disprove a theory the said theory is either thrown out or revamped to fit the the new findings. science is so slick.

 

[Ophiolite]

Laws went out of fashion after we got smart enough to realise how dumb we are. Since then we have stuck to theories, which are of course facts that haven't been falsified yet; and to hypotheses, which are theories put forward by persons not yet having tenure at a proper University. Lower down the scale we have fairy tales for children, then ID for dummies.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Mendel's "laws" may not be laws in the strict scientific sense of the word

my point exactly. lol.

when something comes along to disprove a theory the said theory is either thrown out or revamped to fit the the new findings. science is so slick.

very few things have completely disproven theories... I can't even think of one if there is one... but like msnbc said, laws HAVE been expanded and made more true.. lol.. they weren't fully true yet. That's what a theory is saying... not that it may be outright false, but that it may not be fully true yet and that there could come some discovery somewhere that makes this theory be less true. In the case of the theory of... of...____ (It wouldn't be evolution... but if there is some theory out there that says every single organism came from an original ancestor, i'm talking about that theory), there could be another lineage of life... maybe not every single organism on earth came from one ancestor, maybe there is an as-of-yet undiscovered "tree" of life (say with prokaryotes that have some other kind of nucleic acid and that make much less mistakes in copying DNA and therefore don't evolve as fast)