| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:12:19 PM |
how would a mutation, which are extremely rare, jump to another lineage?
See what happens when I try to help someone out? I urged you to review what the scientific meaning of a mutation was but you didn't do it. Otherwise, you would know that they are not rare at all. We're talking biology here, not X-men.
We can resume this discussion once you've learned to use the scietnific lexicon correctly. We're not using whatever meaning of "mutation" you learned on the street here. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:16:47 PM |
Do you think we fall in love with those who are the product of a similar end result series of mutations . Why do some voices bring a response from our ears that others don't ? Does this theory of it being impossible to not be unique rule out the idea of cloning a human being ? why do we get this feeling of 'knowing' another person , of being comfortable with them . Is it because in a sense they are from the same 'tribe' years ago ?
Science can't measure emotional effects yet so that will remain a mystery for some time. I know it happens as you say but we've only recently been able to study gross changes in brain chemistry to given stimuli. IOW, don't know yet. Maybe some things are better left alone?  | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:14:36 AM | Why should we leave a tantalising thought alone . Surely it was by exploring those 'what ifs ' that the great scientists on whom accepted scientific theories are founded finally cracked the code ? If we never think 'supposing ?' then we're stick where we are . You never walk the highwire unless you take the first step , and humanity always tries to provide a soft landing . Every theory fails a test many times before it holds water . Of course I am not a scientist so my ego isn't involved and this is not an insult .... I believe every theory fails often before it will pass as true to nture's laws .  However this forum has planted a seed of an idea here ... maybe Iwill extend my degree to include a map reading course and other scientific endeavours ????? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:16:36 AM | Frog0,
I agree with your last paragraph completely!
The thing is, that the main crux of my post was to merely state that the thinkers of the time were risking their lives to publically oppose the "authority" of that time.
If Copernicus - and the others- had just went with the status quo, we may well would be still under the governance of said authority.
I agree science has alot of answers, and, for some people, religion does. but to say that either is omniscient, is dangerous.
I know that you are not saying that science has become omniscient!
But i feel that everyone must have their say. and be proven right or wrong regardless of the subject being science or not.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:20:37 PM |
Why should we leave a tantalising thought alone . Surely it was by exploring those 'what ifs ' that the great scientists on whom accepted scientific theories are founded finally cracked the code ?
Most scientists don't have a choice of what they work on. It's all about da money. In this case, neural patterns can only be tracked at great expsense with complex instrumentation. The pathway towards defining a specific neural network responsible for attraction would involve many, many hours of laborious work and a fairly complicated experimental tree. It could be done but no one wants to know about it to spend the billions that it would probably take.
I believe every theory fails often before it will pass as true to nture's laws .
A theory that fails is no longer a theory. It''s just a bunch of words.
However this forum has planted a seed of an idea here ... maybe Iwill extend my degree to include a map reading course and other scientific endeavours ?????
GPS technology highly recommended.  | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:56:36 PM | What is GPS ? Humble apologies as I am not a scientist and when you scientific darlings go into acronyms it's ALL too much for such as me . IMHO ... all scientists need a lot more of the rare quality HUMILITY . Before the god that shows in Nature all around us , before semi illiterate M.A graduates and and .. well don't be so 'up yourselves ' , by which of course I mean up as in the stratosphere . Since you don't know everything ... well think about it , you could just be dismissing as a fool the next great scientist ! You can't prove conditions at the beginning of the world can you ? You weren't there so you are hardly a credible spokesperson for the stange ones who have theories yet to be proven . | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 532 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:08:03 PM | There are countless items that science has yet to explain in concrete terms because it
hasn't evolved to a point where it can measure them or quantify them in some way.
actually there is nothing science has explained in concrete terms. newtons "law" of gravity was the gold standard in physics for more than three hundred years until einstein blew the "law" out of the water by suggesting that a large mass warps space and that is why objects attract. and now hawkings and others are questioning the great one's theory. einstein often said that the human mind is incapable of knowing anything absolutely. "concretely" would work as a synonym in this case. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 533 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:35:54 PM | all scientists need a lot more of the rare quality HUMILITY
might make them more pleasant as humans but humility has no place in science. skepticism does however. scientists are sciences most ardent skeptics. they are always trying to oneup each other. an hypothesis only reaches the status of a scientific theory after it has undergone the very strict scrutiny of scientific methodology. by that i mean enough evidence has been put forth to be tested and found to show repeatable and predictable results.
Since you don't know everything ... well think about it , you could just be dismissing as a fool the next great scientist !
indeed we don't know everything. actually we don't know anything absolutely as i pointed out in my previous post. but that "next great scientist" won't be missed if he can convince his peers that what he hypothesises can meet the methods of science as i explained above.
You can't prove conditions at the beginning of the world can you ?
not in the least. science proves very little if anything. again my post regarding newton's law of gravity. but we have massive amounts of evidence that tells us what we think happened since milliseconds after the big bang. so although we don't know what happened precisely at the time of the big bang or before, we have a pretty good idea of how the universe and therefore the earth and the other planets and stars originated and formed into galaxies and solar systems.
You weren't there so you are hardly a credible spokesperson for the stange ones who have theories yet to be proven .
no indeed. even if he were, we'd only have his testimony as to what happened. and testimony never flies as evidence in science. in a court of law perhaps but never in science. but surely you're not saying people are strange because their theories are not proven are you? a theory proven is no longer a theory. the theory would then become fact, no? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:00:16 AM | Jbogie,
theory is the overall result of an hypothesis that has proven true repeatedly.
This is agreed, however, facts can not be thought of as theories nor theories,facts.
the mere word "fact" infers that something is immutable.
Forgive me if , as i suspect, you were using the word loosely!
i Do agree with most of your last post, except this above.
After all, laws are very susceptable to change with time into only a partly proven basics with new correlaries and understanding of what is yet to be added, through exploring and revisiting the theories. Like Einstein did to Newtons law of gravity.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/26/2009 12:46:22 PM |
What is GPS ?
It's an acronym for Global Positioning System. There's a network of satellites orbiting the Earth that one can use to determine exactly where you are. Maybe you've seen those devices in cars that give driving directions? Some are handheld and look like walkie-talkies. Soon, reading maps will be as passe as learning how to tell tme using a traditional clock-face.
Humble apologies as I am not a scientist and when you scientific darlings go into acronyms it's ALL too much for such as me . IMHO ... all scientists need a lot more of the rare quality HUMILITY .
We fall into the habit of using acronyms to save time. It's annoying to people just entering a specific subject but it's necessary but all they need to do is ask. It's not a point of hubris, just practicality.
After all, what change could we make in ourselves that could possibly make us any more perfect? 
you could just be dismissing as a fool the next great scientist ! You can't prove conditions at the beginning of the world can you ? You weren't there so you are hardly a credible spokesperson for the stange ones who have theories yet to be proven .
You have to have a thick skin in science, as in any other profession. It seems the greats were fueled more by derision than by praise. I don't think anyone who is easily detered will be great at anything. That's just no science. It's life in general.
As far as proving conditions on this planet at a given time. We take our clues from corings, geological formations, rocks, preserved biota and observing the formation of planets near us. What we believe is not based on mere speculaton or guesswork. That kind of scientist would be told to take up religion as that would be what it was. For science, you have to bring the goods. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:34:34 PM | | It in and of itself would be a good thing to be Globally Positioned ... this I have never been as I am one of the tribe who can't read maps ... I'm left handed . That's my story and I'm sticking to it . Hasta la vista . | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/27/2009 11:11:52 AM | Hot,
I was thinking along the lines of a "beneficial" mutation, which survives at least long enough to propagate its DNA.
I agree that there are many mutations in nature. Everything that is living today is a mutation of its parents' DNA. And they theirs, all the way back to prehistory of the single cell organism. As I believe evolution dictates. and it goes further back to the formation of the atoms base components.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/27/2009 5:36:00 PM | Dale,
How right you are. Evolution means that every living thing on this planet is directly descended from whatever priaml ooze hosted the first DNA-based organism. In essence, we've all been alive since then, just AWOL most of the time. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/27/2009 7:56:11 PM | | Oh now I understand why I have been AWOL for so long ... it was primal ooze . Now i know why some people are just oozing with sex appeal !..But how does scientific methodology explain say Cosimodo ? It probably is true then that the primal ooze didn't promise what form it would or could eventually take . | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/27/2009 9:14:15 PM |
Oh now I understand why I have been AWOL for so long ... it was primal ooze . Now i know why some people are just oozing with sex appeal !..But how does scientific methodology explain say Cosimodo ? It probably is true then that the primal ooze didn't promise what form it would or could eventually take .
I assume you mean Quasimodo , correct ?
If that's the case then it's important to remember that Quasimodo was a fictional character. However , it's not like nobody could have ever lived a life similar to that of a fictional character and in this case , deformities are not an entirely too rare occurence.
Deformities are not usually a result of inherently bad DNA. Actually , were that the case , it's unlikely that said deformities would ever make it into the gene pool in the first place. That's simply a function of how appealing humans tend to find the deformed. To put that in perspective...would you marry somebody like Quasimodo and hope to have as many children as possible ? Maybe you would but the vast majority of people wouldn't and eventually the line would almost certainly die out. Actually , at this point we aren't really talking about biology at all anymore and instead are delving into human psychology.
"Bad" DNA isn't necessarily bad all the time. A common example of seemingly harmful mutations is sickle-cell anemia. It is a serious condition and outside of the environment it developed in , it seems like the counter-argument to the theory of evolution. Actually , it's precisely the opposite. Sickle-cell anemia also provides the sufferer with a much greater resistance to malaria. Had that not been the case , it is unlikely that the affliction would have lasted more than a few generations at most.
To understand other "bad" mutations that don't appear to provide any benefit at all also requires one to understand how genetics work. I am absolutely not an expert but I do have a very limited understanding that goes slightly beyond the average. In a nutshell , genetic traits skip generations. This means that one can pass on a trait without showing any signs at all of possessing it. This is how many genetic defects have managed to remain in the gene pool despite their obvious disadvantages. One need not be a sufferer to have a family member who is one. Degenerative nerve diseases come to mind here.
Anyway , the information is all there for all levels of understanding if you care to look into any of it. I would suggest you at least get a grasp of the basics before refuting any of it. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/28/2009 2:38:35 PM | funcuz,
Let us not forget the natural and man-made elements that can and do affect/effect DNA.
Such as tainted; (un/ natural) water/food/drugs/chemicals/pharmaceiuticals/...
and diseases from the "Common" Colds, viruses, etiomological "discoveries",...
  ,
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/29/2009 7:37:23 AM | | ^Well yes , I know but they really have no bearing at all on the matter of evolution in this particular context. Environmentally caused mutations are not the product of the DNA itself but are rather more like mixed up messages between engineers and contractors. The engineers still have a perfectly good copy of the design and it has not been altered at all. The contractors just didn't do their jobs properly for whatever reason. The template itself (the schematic or , better yet , the DNA itself) is just ducky....it's the interpretation of it that is at issue. To sum this up , basically environmental factors that result in deformities are not a sign that anything at all is wrong with the DNA itself. Change the environment and you'd probably get along just fine. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/29/2009 10:40:03 PM | ^Well no , that's not correct. The breakdown of the human body over time (for as poorly understood as it currently is) may or may not be something programmed into our DNA. That being said , even if it isn't actually part of the genetic 'lifetime' something causes our bodies to function less and less efficiently in terms of repair. It's oxygen actually if I recall correctly but don't quote me on that (I can't remember the details right now)
The general rule of thumb seems to be that the more energy we use , the shorter our lives tend to be. As I said , I can't remember the proper details right now but it's out there if you care to look for it.
Think of the information contained in your DNA as a million-page book. Changing one word here and there is not going to change much as far as the messages contained within the book go. Like changing a line in the book that says "...an apple..." to "...a apple...". It's usually very benign. Sometimes a word gets changed entirely though simply by the addition or subtraction of as little as one letter. "Car" gets changed to "Scar". If the line makes no sense , we get catastrophic failure , not of the whole book but of that line at least. As long as the whole book still makes reasonably good sense the mistake gets passed along into the next printing. Eventually , over time , we get enough of these minor mistakes that they DO change the overall message of the book. What's more , sometimes the READER has also changed sufficiently so that the book , in its modified form , now actually makes sense. That's what adaptation is all about. "Survival of the fittest" is not wrong exactly but it is an oversimplification. If the air all suddenly became filled with helium across the world , only people who could actually breathe it in instead of oxygen would be "fittest". The rest would die but that doesn't mean they weren't the "fittest" for their particular environment. It just means that things have changed and they can't survive in the new environment. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/30/2009 2:41:41 AM |
Well no , that's not correct. The breakdown of the human body over time (for as poorly understood as it currently is) may or may not be something programmed into our DNA. That being said , even if it isn't actually part of the genetic 'lifetime' something causes our bodies to function less and less efficiently in terms of repair. It's oxygen actually if I recall correctly but don't quote me on that (I can't remember the details right now)
The general rule of thumb seems to be that the more energy we use , the shorter our lives tend to be. As I said , I can't remember the proper details right now but it's out there if you care to look for it.
Yes. I tend to think of the human body like a biological machine. Regular maintenance and repairs are needed in order to keep it working properly. But eventually over time, no matter the regular maintenance and care, individual components of the machine age, wear down, and eventually stop working.
"Survival of the fittest" is not wrong exactly but it is an oversimplification.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "survival of the fittest", specifically the word "fittest" is taken out of context by most people. Fittest, as in most suitable, not fittest as in a tri-athelete. Survival of the most suitable (fittest) to an environment. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/30/2009 7:06:15 AM | funcuz,
on your post 545, I agree entirely. perhaps what you mean by each cell oxycising, or more generally being rusted out in due course. on this, if I remember the name correctly, the lysozome is the "kamikaze", or "suicide" sac built in to every cell I believe.
This sac is engaged by way of the cells' depletion of energy in the cell. It "eats up" the cell almost entirely, leaving an easier job for the evacuation of the cell waste product.
this way it it easier for the tissue to generate a new cell without a bulging in the tissue from all the dead cells.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 10/5/2009 12:41:50 AM |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "survival of the fittest", specifically the word "fittest" is taken out of context by most people.
Sometimes it seems to be.
The fittest would be the most adaptable. The members of any species that can change their behavior most readily and therefore alter their genetic expression to adapt to the change in environment.
The most adaptable is the survivor. | |
|
Home
login 
