Thread: What You Ought To Know - The Scientific Method

Originally Posted by Xedan

When are you talking about, exactly, that gravity doesn't work?

And just to point something out, whether you're religious or not, you can't say definitively that no god was involved. You can always argue that god caused the big bang, or that god sent life on earth into motion, or the creation of the earth into motion. No matter the theory, you really can't stop people from claiming god had something to do with it.

You can, however, build up massive mountains of evidence and bulletproof cases that make the possibility of a god infinitely small...sure, people could always claim that there is a god, but it would basically fly in the face of reason...along the same lines of logic, it would be possible to say a flying brownie-muffin creature exists, and it would be virtually impossible to disprove this notion, but then again, so much goes against this idea that the odds of such a creature actually existing are so infinitely small as to be negligible.

Flying brownie-muffin? I thought it swam?

Well, seeing as how you hate the flying spaghetti monster, I thought I would change things up a bit.

Yes, but the brownie muffin cannot fly. That's just stupid. It swims.

Originally Posted by Xedan

When are you talking about, exactly, that gravity doesn't work?

Gravity doesn't work on really small scales (as in subatomic).

And just to point something out, whether you're religious or not, you can't say definitively that no god was involved. You can always argue that god caused the big bang, or that god sent life on earth into motion, or the creation of the earth into motion. No matter the theory, you really can't stop people from claiming god had something to do with it.

Neither can you stop people claiming the flying spaghetti monster had something to do with it.

If they don't have any evidence, why should you even listen to them?

Originally Posted by Xedan

When are you talking about, exactly, that gravity doesn't work?.

Originally Posted by Xei

Gravity doesn't work on really small scales (as in subatomic).

Nor does it work on a really massive scale. Galaxies don't spin at the speeds they are supposed to, and no one knows why right now. At really small scale, gravity seems to go on steroids and become nearly as strong as the electromagnetic force. The current theory as to why is because once you get to that size, you are smaller than the folded inter-dimensions, so you experience the full brunt of gravity, once you get beyond that threshold, gravity leaks into those extra dimensions and becomes the weak force that we know. That doesn't explain the rotation of galaxies though, one would expect stars at the outer edges of galaxies to rotate much slower than those near the centre, but they go at the same speed, which seems to indicate that gravity is pulling just as hard at 100,000 light years, as it does at 50,000 light years, even though the equation says it should be pulling a fourth as hard.

Gravity is an incomplete theory that for practical purposes works fine, but it doesn't always work, sort of like newtons laws of motion. Newtons laws don't work at really really high speed, that's where Einstein took over with relativity, but the practical stuff still use Newton's flawed equations, even space travel uses Newtons equations because Einstein's are so complex and fit almost perfectly with Newtons until astronomical speeds.

It's the same for gravity, just no one has figured out the correct equation that always works.

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, it turns out genetic determinism isn't as true as we were taught it was, because the DNA is incapable of activating itself. Not only is DNA incapable of activating itself, it simply sits there until the cell does something with the DNA. And the single cell only messes with DNA when it receives certain signals in the environment. Making the perception of the environment that which drives DNA to evolve/mutate!

That's not correct.
DNA has a function - storage of genetic information.
Information from DNA is read all the time regardless of the environment as it's needed to replenish house-keeping proteins. This even happens in ideal and constant lab conditions.
DNA is also repaired all the time because it is continuously damaged by radiation, genotoxic chemicals and normal products of cell metabolism.
Cells inability to repair damage and inability to perfectly copy DNA during the replication is what causes mutation.

Yes, cells have a mechanism of inducing mutation at higher rate than normal, but that is more of a exception than a rule (it's switched on only in very special circumstances)

The phenomena mentioned above are genetically determined. Genetic determinism is the belief that genes determine the phenotype. There are genes for DNA repair and genes for error-prone copying of DNA, there are genes that determine exactly how the cell responds to signals from environment. You can change (or delete) them and you change the rate of mutation, chance of survival and cellular behavior. THIS is the hallmark of genetic determinism.

But it seems like you are mixing up two different things. Genetic determinism usually refers to behaviour of humans, e.g. do genes determine how we act. They do, but only partially. There's also social and developmental component, and you will NEVER hear scientists say it's determined solely by genes.

Originally Posted by juroara

Not only is now genetic determinism out the door, but so is our understanding of random mutations, which aren't actually so random. A simple test was done. Knowing that bacteria mutate quickly, several batches of the same bacteria were placed into different containers. In each container was the same 'hostile' environment for the bacteria. The test was simple, will the bacteria mutate? And will each batch show a different mutation? It was expected that they would show a different mutation in each batch, because....mutations were believed to be 'random'

Yes, the batches did mutate, but they showed the SAME mutations even though each bacteria colony was separate from the other.

That's not true.
Here is the description of an experiment that showed how mutations are random and that they occur before exposure to environmental change and not as a response to it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_07

NB: certain environmental changes do induce increased mutation rate, but in a random sense
NB2: random mutations are not random only in the sense that they happen in some parts of the genome more often. This is because certain parts (containing genes) are repaired more readily.

Originally Posted by juroara

This means that mutations aren't as random as we think. And the environment, and the perception of the environment, plays a huge role in 'deciding' what those mutations will be.

No, it determines which variants are going to survive, not what they are going to be.

Originally Posted by juroara

It appears random mutation is still self-initiated. After all, because DNA does nothing. It just sits there until the cell messes with it.
Why does the single cell initiate random mutation of its own DNA? It's like throwing the dice, maybe it'll get lucky and 'win' and survive in it's environment better.

You make it sound as if DNA's only function is to mutate.
As mentioned before, hypermutation is an exception rather than a rule. In bacteria it happens only under a lot of stress. In humans it's only used to produce the diversity of the immune system, otherwise it leads to cancer.

Originally Posted by juroara

The point is.......while theories are founded on sound science, or the scientific method, history shows us once again that our theories for the most part remain a work in progress. We shouldn't hold onto any theory so strongly, instead remain the humble but curious human beings

The whole idea behind the scientific method is to remain humble. As has been pointed out, you need only one counter example for a theory to be out the door.
Also, with the exception of math, it's impossible to definitively prove something in science. You can only disprove it.

Originally Posted by Xedan

And just to point something out, whether you're religious or not, you can't say definitively that no god was involved. You can always argue that god caused the big bang, or that god sent life on earth into motion, or the creation of the earth into motion. No matter the theory, you really can't stop people from claiming god had something to do with it.

No-one has yet been able to definitively prove that there is no God, but you need the premise that God didn't interfere for all scientific explanations, because they strive to be able to predict and divine entities are unpredictable.

Also, with the exception of math, it's impossible to definitively prove something in science. You can only disprove it.

Maths is kind of the same actually. You start with some unprovable 'observations', and then use undisputable logic to establish new conclusions.

FACTS:
- DNA dictates the characteristics of a lifeform;
- Lifeforms reproduce and passe down their DNA;
- DNA suffers random mutations;
- Selective pressures upon the population make it so that the more apt lifeforms survive;

Given these FACTS, how can evolution possible NOT happen? Really? Is there any proposed explanation?


There's also one more relevant FACT I forgot to mention:
- Evolution has been and can be observed.

Yikes. Just like what he said happened in the comments of his video, this has degenerated into a creationism/evolution debate. Are you all not capable of thinking about and discussing the deeper implications of the information that was presented to you? The uncertain nature of scientific discovery? Humanities ability to progress without ever really needing to know what is absolutely true? Models of reality and how they shape the world around us? Anyone?

Just watched the videos now. That guy has no idea of what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Yikes. Just like what he said happened in the comments of his video, this has degenerated into a creationism/evolution debate. Are you all not capable of thinking about and discussing the deeper implications of the information that was presented to you? The uncertain nature of scientific discovery? Humanities ability to progress without ever really needing to know what is absolutely true? Models of reality and how they shape the world around us? Anyone?

No one here is discussing creationism/evolution. We're discussing misconceptions in understanding of science and scientific theories.
Misunderstood theory is a basis for a reality model, is it not?

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

That's not correct.
DNA has a function - storage of genetic information.
Information from DNA is read all the time regardless of the environment as it's needed to replenish house-keeping proteins. This even happens in ideal and constant lab conditions.

DNA is covered in a protein casing. The cell has to un-zip this protein casing itself for DNA to do anything. Therefore DNA simply sits there until the cell engages in it. The cell engages with it's DNA because of environmental factors, and if you don't believe me, please watch Biology of Belief/Perception by Bruce Lipton. He's the cell biologist, not me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpZG3PJqeg

But it seems like you are mixing up two different things. Genetic determinism usually refers to behaviour of humans, e.g. do genes determine how we act. They do, but only partially. There's also social and developmental component, and you will NEVER hear scientists say it's determined solely by genes.

But what determines the EXPRESSION of those genes? Take for example that some people have a cancer genes. Well this gene isn't expressed at birth, or else they would have died at a young age! Not all genes are automatically expressed at birth. So what expresses them later in life? Genetic determinism is held as being primary, this thing that comes first. I'm talking about the beliefs attached to genetic determinism, how it influences how we view ourselves.

But it doesn't come first. That which expresses the genes comes before the expression of those genes.

So what expresses the genes? When, where and why?

That's not true.
Here is the description of an experiment that showed how mutations are random and that they occur before exposure to environmental change and not as a response to it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_07

I didn't say that random mutations do not occur. I said that mutations aren't as a whole, as random as we think. Just as there are experiments that show how mutations are random, so to are there experiments that lead to the opposite conclusion. In other words, sometimes mutations are random, sometimes they are not.

It's talked about in my book. So I don't know of any website off hand. I'll have to do some digging around first.

You make it sound as if DNA's only function is to mutate.
As mentioned before, hypermutation is an exception rather than a rule. In bacteria it happens only under a lot of stress. In humans it's only used to produce the diversity of the immune system, otherwise it leads to cancer.

I think DNA serves as a blueprint, a code of sorts to a program. But it is not the program.

While hypermutation is extremely exceptional, it could be one of the most important and fundamental forms of mutation. What is one of the arguments that creationists use against evolution? Well diversity! In evolution there are certain time peroids where life just seems to explode with diversity at such a faster rate than the normal and slower and more predictable evolution. Because the evolutionary rate in these time periods happen so much quicker, creationists are able to poke holes in the theory. They are only able to poke holes in the theory because the theory isn't yet complete.

These explosions of diveristy always happen when the environment becomes critically stressful. Hypermutation might hold a key to understanding the explosion of diversity in these environmental stressful times in evolution.

Obviously, such a mutation would only lead to cancer in an adult being. There is an exception though. And that's the womb. Let's face it. The dinosaurs couldn't evolve fast enough. The mammals could. Mammals had a new evolutionary feat on their side, the womb.

Our old understanding of evolution basically says, some members are just randomly different then other members of the family. And if they survive in the environment better and mate with other randomly different members, well then over centuries a new species is born. Basically, evolution is random, and happens when random mutations survive better. And it's also extremely slow.

Bruces work offers us a new idea of how evolution may work in higher conscious mammals at least. This new idea places the womb as the center of human evolution. Here in the womb the fetus is deeply connected to it's mother. The mothers thoughts and emotions translate to environmental signals in a constant loop with the fetus. If the mother is in stress, well then she's telling her baby that the world is a hostile place, be tough. If the mother is happy, well then she's telling her baby that the world is a loving place, be open.

The mother, and her over all well being, plays a huge role in the overall development of the fetus.

Would it be impossible to imagine that if a mother is in extreme environmental stress that she can actually spur her unborn child to evolve to better match the environment? No, it's not impossible to imagine when you understand how the environment spurs the cells the interact with it's own DNA. No, it's not impossible when you understand for the fetus, the environment is the signals being given to it by it's mother. No, it's not impossible when you understand the fetus, unlike a stable adult, isn't fully formed. It's 'changing' all the time.

Please watch the video to understand where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by juroara

DNA is covered in a protein casing.

Not true.
DNA is not covered in protein casing. DNA is wrapped around proteins called histones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosome

The cell has to un-zip this protein casing itself for DNA to do anything.

No it doesn't. The transcription machinery 'unzips' the double strand (DNA), not the proteins because only one strand on DNA is used as a template for reading information needed to build proteins.
The nucleosome does provide a hindrance for the transcription machinery, but not all of the time because DNA is not fixed with the histones all the time.

Therefore DNA simply sits there until the cell engages in it.

DNA stores information. It stores information when 'cell engages in it', it stores information when it doesn't, it stores information even when it's outside of the cell.

The cell engages with it's DNA because of environmental factors, and if you don't believe me, please watch Biology of Belief/Perception by Bruce Lipton. He's the cell biologist, not me.

DNA is read every time any of the genes is being transcribed.
Some genes are transcribed as a response to environmental changes, some are not. Either way, proteins and DNA interact constantly.

But what determines the EXPRESSION of those genes?

Some are constitutively(all the time) expressed, some are expressed as a consequence of the signals coming from other parts of the cell, some are expressed as a consequence of signals from outside.

Take for example that some people have a cancer genes.

There are no 'cancer genes'. Those are just genes with normal functions that were somehow mutated so their functions became abnormal. Those aberrant variants increase the likelihood of getting cancer.

Well this gene isn't expressed at birth, or else they would have died at a young age!

1. A lot of them do die at young age: 25-30% of ALL pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. 50% of those fetuses die as a result of different genomic aberrations.

2. Hereditary cancer is usually inherited as a single aberrant copy. That means those people have one normally working copy of the gene. In many cases they don't develop cancer until later in life, when they lose the other copy that was functional.

3. There's also sporadic cancer that has no hereditary component, it's a result of accumulated mutations. This usually takes years to develop.

4. Most types of cancer take years to develop

Not all genes are automatically expressed at birth.
So what expresses them later in life?

I never said they were.
"Some are constitutively(all the time) expressed, some are expressed as a consequence of the signals coming from other parts of the cell, some are expressed as a consequence of signals from outside."

But it doesn't come first. That which expresses the genes comes before the expression of those genes.

That which expresses the genes is the activity of transcription factors and their interaction with chemical signals from inside and outside of the cell.
Transcription factors are proteins.
Proteins are encoded in the DNA (genetically determined)
The way proteins interact with signals from outside and inside, and the way they interact with DNA is encoded in the DNA - it's genetically determined.

I didn't say that random mutations do not occur. I said that mutations aren't as a whole, as random as we think. Just as there are experiments that show how mutations are random, so to are there experiments that lead to the opposite conclusion. In other words, sometimes mutations are random, sometimes they are not.

I'll grant you that there are certain parts of the genome that are more likely to undergo mutation. However, 'the same mutation' is far from meaning the same as the 'mutation in the same region of the genome'.

It's talked about in my book. So I don't know of any website off hand. I'll have to do some digging around first.

Take any book on cell biology or genetics, and you'll get some understanding if you're really interested. Don't use Bruce Lipton's books as a resource on biology because they have nothing to do with biology.

I think DNA serves as a blueprint, a code of sorts to a program. But it is not the program.

The cell can only have functions that are stored in the DNA. The program is dynamic because it has to respond to different conditions. But it's still a program.

While hypermutation is extremely exceptional, it could be one of the most important and fundamental forms of mutation.

There's nothing fundamentally special about it.

What is one of the arguments that creationists use against evolution? Well diversity! In evolution there are certain time peroids where life just seems to explode with diversity at such a faster rate than the normal and slower and more predictable evolution. Because the evolutionary rate in these time periods happen so much quicker, creationists are able to poke holes in the theory. They are only able to poke holes in the theory because the theory isn't yet complete.


These explosions of diveristy always happen when the environment becomes critically stressful. Hypermutation might hold a key to understanding the explosion of diversity in these environmental stressful times in evolution.

Hypermutation has been know about for more than 40 years and well understood as one of the many mechanisms of molecular evolution.

Obviously, such a mutation would only lead to cancer in an adult being.

It happens ALL the time in adult beings, it's a normal part of any immune response. It's also a risky way of repairing DNA damage that can't be repaired otherwise.
Sometimes it causes cancer, yes.

There is an exception though. And that's the womb.

No, it happens less frequently in the womb - the immune system fully develops after birth.

Let's face it. The dinosaurs couldn't evolve fast enough. The mammals could. Mammals had a new evolutionary feat on their side, the womb.

Let's face it. This 'theory' makes no sense.
A lot of mammals became extinct the same time dinosaurs have. They go extinct all the time.
What about plants, they don't have wombs, how can they still be alive?
Or birds? Or reptiles?
Or any non-mammal?
Also, bacteria and viruses don't have wombs and evolve a couple of orders of magnitude faster than humans.

Bruces work offers us a new idea of how evolution may work in higher conscious mammals at least.

Bruce is just selling his books to people with no basic understanding of biology

Would it be impossible to imagine that if a mother is in extreme environmental stress that she can actually spur her unborn child to evolve to better match the environment?

It's more likely that it will cause a miscarriage.

Please watch the video to understand where I'm coming from.

Bruce Lipton is a fraud.
He also isn't saying anything new. In 1961. Jacques Monod discovered how gene expression can be regulated depending on the nutrients available in the environment. It's not like Lipton is presenting a scientific revolution. He's just bastardizing well know facts.

If you're interested in biology, read books on biology, don't listen to this crap.

Jesus christ jurora, how can you possibly write such a long and detailed post about something which you know absolutely nothing about?

Go read a book. Kudos to Snake Charmer for missioning through that.

Have you not yet heard - God is dead?

(modified, from: Nietzsche, F., Thus spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, sect. 2)

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Bruce Lipton is a fraud.

Because Bruce Lipton opened my eyes to something more, my stomach ulcer went away in a day. Your understanding of biology would not allow for this to happen.

Originally Posted by juroara

Because Bruce Lipton opened my eyes to something more, my stomach ulcer went away in a day. Your understanding of biology would not allow for this to happen.

Bruce Lipton's understanding of biology is based on your mis-understanding of it and his profiting due to it.

It is because of people's naivety that manipulative scholars, like Bruce Lipton, can make money and still feel no guilt.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Bruce Lipton's understanding of biology is based on your mis-understanding of it and his profiting due to it.

It is because of people's naivety that manipulative scholars, like Bruce Lipton, can make money and still feel no guilt.

~

Which parts of Bruce Lipton's understanding of cell biology is wrong? Since I have my first hand experience I don't have a reason to doubt Bruce. You're going to have to give me much more then blame my nativity to doubt Bruce!

Originally Posted by juroara

Which parts of Bruce Lipton's understanding of cell biology is wrong?

You're going to have to give me much more then blame my nativity to doubt Bruce!

"A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior."
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

Since I have my first hand experience I don't have a reason to doubt Bruce.

I do not need to say anything - you prove to yourself that you are naive.

Bruce Lipton has no empirical evidence for what you are speaking of - it is all conjecture.

It is not up to me to prove it - it is up to him.

The only empirical things Bruce Lipton has produced are on skeletal muscle tissue:
+ Developmental Fate of Skeletal Muscle Satellite Cells
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Sci...205.1292L

+ Microvessel endothelial cell transdifferentiation: phenotypic characterization
- http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

You ignore the greater power in this instance - if Bruce Lipton is wrong (which he is) then you healed your own ulcer by your own will alone.

What do you think is a greater achievement? Your naivety? Or your neglected powerful will?

I've done my homework - start doing your own.

~

You're making me laugh, seriously!

Originally Posted by O'nus

You ignore the greater power in this instance - if Bruce Lipton is wrong (which he is) then you healed your own ulcer by your own will alone.

Uh DUH! That's what Bruce himself teaches! I don't even know what you are arguing against anymore. Bruce teaches that our beliefs can and do effect our own biology. That is his argument!

Originally Posted by juroara

You're making me laugh, seriously!

*facepalm*

Uh DUH! That's what Bruce himself teaches! I don't even know what you are arguing against anymore. Bruce teaches that our beliefs can and do effect our own biology. That is his argument!

There's a fine line here.

You ought to know that you still should seek out medical attention with scientific support - not just some flimsy talk in a book. Bruce Lipton is manipulating some truth with speculation.

I hope you see what I mean - you ought to not just sit there and "believe you can feel better" but be optimistic through actual therapy.

Bruce Lipton manipulates people like you to buy his books instead of using his intelligence to further actual research. You ought to know that this is a very dishonest thing. He is walking thin ice in the science community.

~

I haven't really been keeping up, but from what I've gathered this guy is preaching about placebo effects (or the mind set that comes from them at least) being all you need. There is a reason for medicine. It's not all sugar and water.