Creationists: Here's your chance

[The_Evelyonian]

A few times in this thread the question has been asked: "How can the Universe come from nothing?"

This lecture by Lawrence Krauss attempts to provide an answer.

[youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]

 

[RedOne77]

You don't have to know the rules to see that it happens naturally every day. No magic involved. It happens.

Ah, but you just don't have the gift to see the little invisible leprechauns putting them together, now do you. :rainbow1:

Then it's not science!:slap:
PS I did not see the little wink at the end as I read the thread in "show printable version". :sorry1:

No problem, we all make mistakes.

 

[Jollybear]

Xanaticus

simple for you maybe. your demonstration it's futher nothing, but only guessing ("too many to have happened by chance"). if you take in account that it took about hundreds of milions of years, then that complexity didn't need any intelligent creator. it looks like that because there was so much time at disposal

So you assume so much TIME and so much CHANCE DID IT? That is time/chance of the gaps. Prove time and chance did it.

science don't need to make anybody to be a naturist. the wish of knowing about nature is strong enough at many people who decide to study the one or other branch of science and become scientists, while religion needs followers ( as many as possible)to exist.

That’s bull, science needs followers in order to exist. If no one followed science, then no one would become a scientist and therefore science would not exist. The same goes for religion. TRUTH although would STILL exist whether people follow it or not. Give me a break man. Listen, your taking up too much of my time, I was trying to have a meaningful debate with painted_wolf.

just an example: the polytheist religions of the old egyptians or romans were dead in the moment they didn't have enough followers, while Pytagoras didn't need any fans to write his theory which still has validity today

Just because something has no followers does not mean it’s false. And just because something has followers does not make it true. You’re basically saying majority following something makes it true, that’s baloney man. As much as I disagree with polytheism me disagreeing with it does not make it false or have no validity to it. Again, give me a break.

and believe me, those who use technical language doesn't adress to people like you.

Ok, that is fine.

it's your choise if you inform yourself and read enough to understand them. the articles you read are written mostly by journalists (no scientists!), who try to present the issue so that the people buy the magazine he/she works for, therefore i meant i understand the political touch you see there. the governments will pay for science, no matter if the laymen support it or not. there are also other interests than informing the laymen...

Scientists should understand the world enough to realize what street language SOUNDS like, otherwise there being sheltered from MOST people. And that is not good.

to disprove some theories you have to do science, but religion isn't compatible for that.

Evolution is not science, it’s a scientific THEORY, yea, but it’s NOT a scientific FACT. And don’t come back and say a theory in science means a fact either, I don’t want to hear that nonsense again. Also religion DOES do science to some degree, science is just basically searching to discover, well religion does that, of course it does. It just may do it on a different level modern science does it. Also intelligent design scientists are not trying to disprove science, but rather disprove the scientific theory of evolution. So there is a big difference there.

RedOne77

There is a reason why scientists use technical terms, and it isn't to shoot up their ego.

Perhaps not in the case of SOME scientists, but I think some have a big fat ego.

The natural world is complex and very specific terminology is needed to explain how things work.

Wrong, you can name complex things with simple words, every day words. Yes you can.

There are analogies and metaphors that scientists, and other sciency type people use in order to get basic concepts across, but with any metaphor about the natural world there are limitations. Eventually the metaphor becomes useless, like DNA is a language. A very useful analogy for people who don't have a good grasp on what is happening at the molecular level of transcription/translation. However, at the finer details, the metaphor breaks apart.

Then come up with a better metaphor then if that one (language) is not accurate! Otherwise it’s misleading. And why the hell does Francis collens call it language?

Some scientists do write books for laymen, and when they do they usually lighten up on the techno jargon.

That’s good, give me some recommendations for books to read that talk with simple language but with GREAT detail? Got any? I will seriously go get them and read them, but they better be street language, otherwise I will get frustrated with the book. I seriously do not want a dictionary with me as I read a book, I don’t like that and I will not do it. I am not willing to. I am not even open to the idea. Some things I am very open about, this is not one of them though.

But when they write articles attended for scientifically literate audiences, particularly peers, they have to write and use terms that are on the level.

Why not speak the same language on all levels? I don’t get it?

That way their peers, other scientists, know exactly what they are talking about and they can have a real scientific discussion on said issue.

What there scientific peers don’t have a clue what there talking about if they speak in street language? You’re kidding me right?

I do however agree that they need to reach out to laymen, and this is done very well at the university level, and before that scientifically literate teachers at the K-12 level, and through certain books intended for laymen consumption.

Forget the university level, I am not paying money to go to college, I’ll stick with the books thank you. Knowledge is free.

 

[RedOne77]

Evolution is not science, it’s a scientific THEORY, yea, but it’s NOT a scientific FACT. And don’t come back and say a theory in science means a fact either, I don’t want to hear that nonsense again.

A "fact" in science is basically a "verified observation". "Evolution" as in 'changes in allele frequency over time' is a verified observation, a scientific fact. The "theory of evolution" is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the specific fact that populations change over time. That is the relation between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

Also religion DOES do science to some degree, science is just basically searching to discover, well religion does that, of course it does. It just may do it on a different level modern science does it.

"Science" is simply a methodology to understand the natural world. Religion simply does not do science for two main reasons. One, religion doesn't use the scientific method (that is essentially what science is). And two, religion for the most part makes claims about the supernatural, not the natural, and science can't be used to study the supernatural.

Perhaps not in the case of SOME scientists, but I think some have a big fat ego.

Ha ha, I'll have to agree there. Just keep in mind that using technical terms doesn't necessarily translate into an ego-maniac.

Wrong, you can name complex things with simple words, every day words. Yes you can.

You can use simple words and analogies to get ideas across, but whenever you do that part of the technical meaning is lost; some of the information gets erased.

Then come up with a better metaphor then if that one (language) is not accurate! Otherwise it’s misleading. And why the hell does Francis collens call it language?

I think the language metaphor is good to teach the basic mechanics and function that DNA is responsible for up to about the intro level college courses; biology 101 is probably the last time I would think such an analogy should be used to increase one's understanding.

The language metaphor is probably the most accurate metaphor, but again it has limitations. Everyone knows what a language is, and it is a quick and dirty way to teach people about the basic function of DNA. And at the more professional level, people use these types of metaphors all the time, they are just understood by their peers to be such. All analogies and metaphors in science have their flaws and are not 100% accurate.

That’s good, give me some recommendations for books to read that talk with simple language but with GREAT detail? Got any? I will seriously go get them and read them, but they better be street language, otherwise I will get frustrated with the book. I seriously do not want a dictionary with me as I read a book, I don’t like that and I will not do it. I am not willing to. I am not even open to the idea. Some things I am very open about, this is not one of them though.

I personally don't really read laymen books about science (I've read 2 or 3 in my entire life); I'm a college student and stick mainly with textbooks and other materials I get in class. Anything else usually comes from talking to people and various online sources. Although something like the Scientific America magazine would probably be a good bet, from what I remember they use very basic language and tell you what any technical terms are as you read.

Why not speak the same language on all levels? I don’t get it?

Because the less technical the language is, the less information there is (assuming every thing else is equal).
For example, I could say that during cell division, 'little tiny string like structures from structures at the two ends of the cell attach themselves to molecules of DNA. These string like structures are made up of many little units, and these units are broken apart at the site where they attach to the DNA, moving the DNA to the ends of the cell. Meanwhile, the units that were broken off are forming other string like structures pushing the cell apart. Other types of string like structures are pulling the cell inwards, ultimately this pulling will pinch the cell into two separate cells.'
That uses absolutely no technical terms what so ever I think. But I could describe the exact same process with more technical terms giving it more meaning to people who understand them, like below. (Take my spelling with a grain of salt )

'During the mitotic phase of the cell cycle, tubulin subunits of alpha and beta polymerize as dimers from the centrosomes to form microtubules that will attach to the kinetochore of each chromosome. The kinetochore proteins will then hydrolize the microtubules, pulling the chromosomes to their respected poles, to create tubulin subunits that will then form non-kinetochore mircotubules stretching the cell. Actin filaments will create a contractile ring, forming a cleavage furrow ultimately separating the cell into two cells via cytokinesis.

What there scientific peers don’t have a clue what there talking about if they speak in street language? You’re kidding me right?

Oddly enough, they probably will not understand what someone is talking about if they use street language. Each technical term has a specific meaning, it gives the conversation specificity that it would not otherwise have. Like the example I used above is an overview of what happens during mitosis regarding part of the cytoskeleton. If I say 'little string like structures' to scientists, it is such a broad category (in fact I don't think it is a category) they will not know what I'm talking about. But if I say 'microtubules' or 'microfilaments (actin filaments)' they will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Forget the university level, I am not paying money to go to college, I’ll stick with the books thank you. Knowledge is free.

You still have to pay for books! And there is a lot of knowledge that just isn't out for public consumption, and can only be accessed through university. And even if you just want to go and buy university textbooks, they will still use technical terms as it gives specificity to what they are saying, something that is key in science and mathematics. If you want understanding beyond laymen understanding, you have to familiarize yourself with technical terms.

 

[painted wolf]

I really wish I could frubal you right now!!!

wa:do

ps... I could recommend a couple of great pop-sci books if you ever want a fun read.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As I know for a fact that the scientific method and the difference between scientific laws, theories, and hypothesis have been explained numerous times to Jolly, I can only assume that his constant misuse of the terms is due to a willful ignorance that is common among Creationists.

 

[Jollybear]

RedOne77

A "fact" in science is basically a "verified observation". "Evolution" as in 'changes in allele frequency over time' is a verified observation, a scientific fact. The "theory of evolution" is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the specific fact that populations change over time. That is the relation between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

So in other words the “theory of evolution” is not a fact of evolution. It’s inferred.

"Science" is simply a methodology to understand the natural world. Religion simply does not do science for two main reasons. One, religion doesn't use the scientific method (that is essentially what science is). And two, religion for the most part makes claims about the supernatural, not the natural, and science can't be used to study the supernatural.[/quote]

This is not totally true though. Religion does do science to an extent. The scientific method is to ask a question, religion can do that, also to background research, religion can do that, construct a hypotheses, religion can do that, test the hypotheses by doing a experiment, religion can do that, analyze the hypotheses and make a conclusion, religion can also do that. And then communicate your results, religion can also do that. They just do this applying it to the supernatural, natural science does it applying it to the natural world.

Ha ha, I'll have to agree there. Just keep in mind that using technical terms doesn't necessarily translate into an ego-maniac.

Agree

I think the language metaphor is good to teach the basic mechanics and function that DNA is responsible for up to about the intro level college courses; biology 101 is probably the last time I would think such an analogy should be used to increase one's understanding.

Ok, if the language metaphor is not good beyond biology 101 why even use it at all? If it’s not correct or accurate, why use it period?

The language metaphor is probably the most accurate metaphor, but again it has limitations. Everyone knows what a language is, and it is a quick and dirty way to teach people about the basic function of DNA. And at the more professional level, people use these types of metaphors all the time, they are just understood by their peers to be such. All analogies and metaphors in science have their flaws and are not 100% accurate.

Ok, first you’re saying it’s a accurate metaphor, next your saying it’s not 100% accurate. What is it, either it’s accurate or it’s not? If it’s accurate, then how is the DNA literally language? If it’s not accurate, how is the DNA not language?

If it’s not accurate and they know this, why are they using it? It’s misleading.

I personally don't really read laymen books about science (I've read 2 or 3 in my entire life); I'm a college student and stick mainly with textbooks and other materials I get in class. Anything else usually comes from talking to people and various online sources. Although something like the Scientific America magazine would probably be a good bet, from what I remember they use very basic language and tell you what any technical terms are as you read.

I bought one scientific America magazine and it was about cosmology, and I did not even finish reading it because of the language it used. Couldn’t stand it. Some of it was OK, and the pictures were cool, but other than that, it was terrible TO ME.

How much in price are the university textbooks on biology?

Because the less technical the language is, the less information there is (assuming every thing else is equal).
For example, I could say that during cell division, 'little tiny string like structures from structures at the two ends of the cell attach themselves to molecules of DNA. These string like structures are made up of many little units, and these units are broken apart at the site where they attach to the DNA, moving the DNA to the ends of the cell. Meanwhile, the units that were broken off are forming other string like structures pushing the cell apart. Other types of string like structures are pulling the cell inwards, ultimately this pulling will pinch the cell into two separate cells.'
That uses absolutely no technical terms what so ever I think. But I could describe the exact same process with more technical terms giving it more meaning to people who understand them, like below. (Take my spelling with a grain of salt )

'During the mitotic phase of the cell cycle, tubulin subunits of alpha and beta polymerize as dimers from the centrosomes to form microtubules that will attach to the kinetochore of each chromosome. The kinetochore proteins will then hydrolize the microtubules, pulling the chromosomes to their respected poles, to create tubulin subunits that will then form non-kinetochore mircotubules stretching the cell. Actin filaments will create a contractile ring, forming a cleavage furrow ultimately separating the cell into two cells via cytokinesis.

Yea, that last explanation was crazy. The first one was better.

Here’s a question for yea, why did they call it “centrosomes”? and not something else?

Oddly enough, they probably will not understand what someone is talking about if they use street language. Each technical term has a specific meaning, it gives the conversation specificity that it would not otherwise have. Like the example I used above is an overview of what happens during mitosis regarding part of the cytoskeleton. If I say 'little string like structures' to scientists, it is such a broad category (in fact I don't think it is a category) they will not know what I'm talking about. But if I say 'microtubules' or 'microfilaments (actin filaments)' they will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh, but what if it was ORIGNALLY called “little string like structures” and you used those terms, would they understand you then?

You still have to pay for books! And there is a lot of knowledge that just isn't out for public consumption, and can only be accessed through university. And even if you just want to go and buy university textbooks, they will still use technical terms as it gives specificity to what they are saying, something that is key in science and mathematics. If you want understanding beyond laymen understanding, you have to familiarize yourself with technical terms.

True, but paying for books saves you a lot more money than paying the fees for college. Also give me an example where some knowledge is NOT available for public consumption?

Tumbleweed41

As I know for a fact that the scientific method and the difference between scientific laws, theories, and hypothesis have been explained numerous times to Jolly, I can only assume that his constant misuse of the terms is due to a willful ignorance that is common among Creationists.

That’s bull, I have no willful ignorance when it comes to trying to understand a position.

And I see the difference between fact, hypotheses, theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yet you keep misusing the terms. Are you saying then that this is unintentional?

 

[McBell]

Yet you keep misusing the terms. Are you saying then that this is unintentional?

Seems to me that he is saying that he knows the differences but is going to continue to use the arguments that rely on the dishonest method of misusing the terms.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Seems to me that he is saying that he knows the differences but is going to continue to use the arguments that rely on the dishonest method of misusing the terms.

Therefore, a willful misuse promoting ignorance of the subject.
Or....
Willful ignorance.

 

[McBell]

Therefore, a willful misuse promoting ignorance of the subject.
Or....
Willful ignorance.

well, there are other possibilities.

For example, he could just be a bold faced liar.

 

[RedOne77]

So in other words the “theory of evolution” is not a fact of evolution. It’s inferred.

I don't think infer is the right word. Inference is used in making theories, but I wouldn't say that a scientific theory is an inference in of itself. Theories explain facts and questions why those facts are facts.
Observation/Fact: Populations change over time.
Question: Why do populations change over time?
Hypothesis (tentative educated guess; eventually correct hypotheses can become theories): Slight variations within a given population plus environmental pressures may causes certain features (alleles) to be expressed at higher and lower frequencies (percentages).
Experiment/Study/Data collecting: You could be like Darwin and catalog the different sizes of finch beaks and their function. And over time get enough data to say that the original hypothesis was correct.
Theory: After many experiments and correct predictions etc., the correct hypothesis that populations change over time due to selective pressures from the environment is incorporated into the "theory of evolution". And over time other correct hypotheses will get incorporated into the theory as well.

That is a quick and dirty way to show the relationship between fact/observation, hypotheses and theories.

This is not totally true though. Religion does do science to an extent. The scientific method is to ask a question, religion can do that, also to background research, religion can do that, construct a hypotheses, religion can do that, test the hypotheses by doing a experiment, religion can do that, analyze the hypotheses and make a conclusion, religion can also do that. And then communicate your results, religion can also do that. They just do this applying it to the supernatural, natural science does it applying it to the natural world.

Another name for the scientific method is methodological naturalism. By its very definition you cannot apply it to the supernatural. But don't worry, science isn't the only method to gain information and learn about things; science has its limits as well. You just cannot place God inside a test tube, God is way too big for such things. Again, this doesn't mean that religion is wrong, just that you cannot learn about the supernatural through a natural methodology. Science may be a part of formulating ideas about God and such, they just can't directly test them. If you have a specific scientific experiment that religion has done, bring it up.

Ok, if the language metaphor is not good beyond biology 101 why even use it at all? If it’s not correct or accurate, why use it period?

It is useful for getting the basic idea across, but nothing really technical. It is a good way to teach people what the function of DNA is for those who really know nothing about it. Another example is the old enzyme analogy of a "lock and key"; a metaphor that is not 100% accurate, but good for understanding the basic concept of how enzymes recognize their substrate.

Ok, first you’re saying it’s a accurate metaphor, next your saying it’s not 100% accurate. What is it, either it’s accurate or it’s not? If it’s accurate, then how is the DNA literally language? If it’s not accurate, how is the DNA not language?

If it’s not accurate and they know this, why are they using it? It’s misleading.

DNA is not literally a language, it is a metaphor; comparing two unlike things that have similar (not exact) functions. It is accurate to a certain point, past that point it becomes useless in extracting useful information. There are different shades of accuracy (10%, 15%, 50%, 80% etc.). DNA is not a language, when it gets transcribed and translated it is just the laws of chemistry and nature that does what it does. I honestly don't know how one could talk about transcription or translation as a language; maybe a code, but even that has limitations.

Despite that it isn't completely accurate in all detail, it is still used, like the enzyme analogy of a "lock and key" is still used. It is a way of bridging the gap between technical explanations and no explanation.

I bought one scientific America magazine and it was about cosmology, and I did not even finish reading it because of the language it used. Couldn’t stand it. Some of it was OK, and the pictures were cool, but other than that, it was terrible TO ME.

I was recently told that "Discover" magazine uses less technical terms, the drawback is that it is not as in-depth, but without willing to learning the terms there isn't much else you can do.

How much in price are the university textbooks on biology?

They can be very expensive; over $100 just for in introductory level textbook. I found my first university biology textbook on Amazon for $115! But this is current textbooks. If you don't mind reading something a little out of date (shouldn't be a problem for low level stuff), they can be much less costly. An older addition of the book I found for around $30 on Amazon for a new copy: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805371605/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

Not a bad deal for an intro book and relatively current ( published 2005). But yeah, knowledge is seldom free.

Yea, that last explanation was crazy. The first one was better.

Here’s a question for yea, why did they call it “centrosomes”? and not something else?

I don't know. Many terms are derived from Latin; like "flagellum" means "whip" in Latin. Why did they call water "water" and not "google"?

Oh, but what if it was ORIGNALLY called “little string like structures” and you used those terms, would they understand you then?

In theory, yes. But it is more of a descriptor than a noun. But how would you discriminate between the different types? Of these little string like structures, there are three main categories, and many sub-categories. BTW, many words are not really random words, and if you know enough you can derive meaning from certain phrases in the word itself. Like words ending in "ose" are usually sugars, endings involving "ase" are usually enzymes, if there is an "auto" in there it usually has to do with itself, "glyco" has to do with sugars/carbohydrates, "oxy" usually has something to do with oxygen and so on. Even DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid); "Deoxyribo" has to do with the loss of an oxygen molecule on the sugar "ribose", with "nucleic acid" part having to do with the nitrogenous base (A T C G). So there are certain 'rules' when making words, it isn't about making Latin sounding words to dazzle the public.

True, but paying for books saves you a lot more money than paying the fees for college. Also give me an example where some knowledge is NOT available for public consumption?

It is getting somewhat easier thanks to technology, but many sources and material just cannot be accessed on the web, especially once you get into graduate level material. You probably will not find much of any technical reading in a local library, but you can become reasonably educated from reading textbooks. However, unlike taking a course using the same textbook, you don't get information that your professor will tell you that is not in the book, and you don't have someone to ask any questions that you might have about the material. And for people like PW and myself, without a university education we wouldn't be able to get a job in our respected fields. Also, the most current information avalible is in scientific articles like "Nature" and "Science", and I've heard that subscriptions to those will cost you hundreds of dollars a year. A nice thing about university, you can access these journals for free if you're a student or professor. I know if I go to my school library I can pick up a hard copy of "Nature" and read it in the lounge area.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Yet you keep misusing the terms. Are you saying then that this is unintentional?

How am I miss using the terms? Hypotheses is an assumption. A theory is many assumptions put together pointing in the same direction. A fact is neither a hypotheses nor a theory, it’s something that is clear as day.

What am I misunderstanding about that?

Mestemia

well, there are other possibilities.

For example, he could just be a bold faced liar.

Or maybe your just being evil because I am not a liar.

 

[Jollybear]

RedOne77

I don't think infer is the right word. Inference is used in making theories, but I wouldn't say that a scientific theory is an inference in of itself. Theories explain facts and questions why those facts are facts.

Observation/Fact: Populations change over time.

But you don’t know if it’s a fact if they change to the extent of changing into a different kind of creature or organism. Yes, fact is organisms change over time, but it’s a THEORY that they change to a very high extent to becoming something else.

Question: Why do populations change over time?

Hypothesis (tentative educated guess; eventually correct hypotheses can become theories): Slight variations within a given population plus environmental pressures may causes certain features (alleles) to be expressed at higher and lower frequencies (percentages).
Experiment/Study/Data collecting: You could be like Darwin and catalog the different sizes of finch beaks and their function. And over time get enough data to say that the original hypothesis was correct.

Don’t have a problem here.

Theory: After many experiments and correct predictions etc., the correct hypothesis that populations change over time due to selective pressures from the environment is incorporated into the "theory of evolution". And over time other correct hypotheses will get incorporated into the theory as well.

Don’t have a problem here.

That is a quick and dirty way to show the relationship between fact/observation, hypotheses and theories.

Sounds ok.

Another name for the scientific method is methodological naturalism. By its very definition you cannot apply it to the supernatural.

Yea but why rule out the supernatural? Science is all about finding TRUTH right? So why rule out FROM the start that something is NOT true before SEARCHING for it first? It just don’t sound right nor open.

But don't worry, science isn't the only method to gain information and learn about things; science has its limits as well. You just cannot place God inside a test tube, God is way too big for such things.

Right, I did not say God could be put in a test tube, but can’t the spirit realm be put in it? Not the whole realm of course, it’s too big for that too, but they can at least try to develop ways to detect it.

Again, this doesn't mean that religion is wrong, just that you cannot learn about the supernatural through a natural methodology. Science may be a part of formulating ideas about God and such, they just can't directly test them. If you have a specific scientific experiment that religion has done, bring it up.

I think spiritual experiences like out of body or near death can be treated as scientific, how they verify things and then find out when they come back to their body that it was true what they verified.

It is useful for getting the basic idea across, but nothing really technical. It is a good way to teach people what the function of DNA is for those who really know nothing about it. Another example is the old enzyme analogy of a "lock and key"; a metaphor that is not 100% accurate, but good for understanding the basic concept of how enzymes recognize their substrate.

Ok, but if that is not what DNA is FOR, a CODE or language, if that is not what it’s really for, then why use it?

DNA is not literally a language, it is a metaphor; comparing two unlike things that have similar (not exact) functions. It is accurate to a certain point, past that point it becomes useless in extracting useful information. There are different shades of accuracy (10%, 15%, 50%, 80% etc.). DNA is not a language, when it gets transcribed and translated it is just the laws of chemistry and nature that does what it does. I honestly don't know how one could talk about transcription or translation as a language; maybe a code, but even that has limitations.

Again, why even call it a code if that is not EXACTLY what it is? Tell me in your own words, what EXACTLY DNA is? If it’s not a blue print for our body, nor a code for how our bodies get built, nor a language to communicate to other little machines in our body to use to build us, if DNA is NOT that, what IS it? And then HOW do you KNOW that is what it IS? So I have two questions there for you.

Despite that it isn't completely accurate in all detail, it is still used, like the enzyme analogy of a "lock and key" is still used. It is a way of bridging the gap between technical explanations and no explanation.

Well of course it’s not a LITERAL human made lock and key, but is it a lock and key MADE by God? If not, what IS it literally? And how do you know?

That is what I am going to do now, I am just going to ask all kinds of questions, you don’t mind do you?

They can be very expensive; over $100 just for in introductory level textbook. I found my first university biology textbook on Amazon for $115! But this is current textbooks. If you don't mind reading something a little out of date (shouldn't be a problem for low level stuff), they can be much less costly. An older addition of the book I found for around $30 on Amazon for a new copy: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...F8&me=&seller=

Not a bad deal for an intro book and relatively current ( published 2005). But yeah, knowledge is seldom free.

Yea, 100 dollars is expensive, at least right now it is, since I am trying to wipe out some debt with having a second job. But perhaps after I get that wiped out I will get it and read it. But don’t they have biology textbooks you can get at the library?

Also I don’t see how knowledge costs, or seldem free. Just doing a simple google search I found this online biology textbook for FREE. An On-Line Biology Book now I don’t know if it’s a good one or not, but it sure is a FREE one.

Also when you say “introductory level textbook” do you mean there are OTHER biology textbooks that go deeper then the introductory level? If so, how many biology textbook levels are there before it reaches the end?

I am asking because I want to know how much I would need to read in order to absolutely know everything there is to know on biology that is up to date.

 

[Jollybear]

I don't know. Many terms are derived from Latin; like "flagellum" means "whip" in Latin. Why did they call water "water" and not "google"?

Yea, why did they call water “water”?

In theory, yes. But it is more of a descriptor than a noun. But how would you discriminate between the different types? Of these little string like structures, there are three main categories, and many sub-categories.

Maybe discriminate them by saying “string like structure number 1” and “string like structure number 2”

BTW, many words are not really random words, and if you know enough you can derive meaning from certain phrases in the word itself. Like words ending in "ose" are usually sugars, endings involving "ase" are usually enzymes, if there is an "auto" in there it usually has to do with itself, "glyco" has to do with sugars/carbohydrates, "oxy" usually has something to do with oxygen and so on. Even DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid); "Deoxyribo" has to do with the loss of an oxygen molecule on the sugar "ribose", with "nucleic acid" part having to do with the nitrogenous base (A T C G). So there are certain 'rules' when making words, it isn't about making Latin sounding words to dazzle the public.

Ok, what is deoxyribonucleic Acid (or DNA)?

It is getting somewhat easier thanks to technology, but many sources and material just cannot be accessed on the web, especially once you get into graduate level material. You probably will not find much of any technical reading in a local library,

I find this hard to imagine. What about a super big library?

but you can become reasonably educated from reading textbooks. However, unlike taking a course using the same textbook, you don't get information that your professor will tell you that is not in the book, and you don't have someone to ask any questions that you might have about the material.

But that is ok, right? Is it necessary to have the little bit more information that the professor will give you?

And for people like PW and myself, without a university education we wouldn't be able to get a job in our respected fields.

Are you going to be a biologist or what are you going for?

Also, the most current information avalible is in scientific articles like "Nature" and "Science", and I've heard that subscriptions to those will cost you hundreds of dollars a year. A nice thing about university, you can access these journals for free if you're a student or professor. I know if I go to my school library I can pick up a hard copy of "Nature" and read it in the lounge area.

So no one is allowed to go to a college library who is not a student huh? Does that rule apply to all colleges?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Tumbleweed41


How am I miss using the terms? Hypotheses is an assumption. A theory is many assumptions put together pointing in the same direction. A fact is neither a hypotheses nor a theory, it’s something that is clear as day.

What am I misunderstanding about that?

The definition of "theory" for starters

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumbleweed41


How am I miss using the terms? Hypotheses is an assumption. A theory is many assumptions put together pointing in the same direction. A fact is neither a hypotheses nor a theory, it’s something that is clear as day.

What am I misunderstanding about that?

I know we have been over this in the past, but here we go again....

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.



Scientific Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.



Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.


Scientific Fact A Scientific Fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). Both Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories are considered to be Scientific Facts.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
What does scientific fact mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary)
scientific fact, scientific facts- WordWeb dictionary definition



Think you can remember this time?

 

[painted wolf]

Scientific laws are only in Physics and to a lesser extent Chemistry (as laws are strictly mathematical)... there are no laws in Biology.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne77
But you don’t know if it’s a fact if they change to the extent of changing into a different kind of creature or organism. Yes, fact is organisms change over time, but it’s a THEORY that they change to a very high extent to becoming something else.

A theory is not a conjecture nor an unsupported guess/assertion. Theories explain why things are the way they are. Oxygen theory, for example, explains why some metals gain weight during combustion. It was a fact that metals gain weight before the theory was developed, but it was the theory that explained why (which is that oxygen combines with the metal upon combustion adding to the weight of the metal, fyi).

Yea but why rule out the supernatural? Science is all about finding TRUTH right? So why rule out FROM the start that something is NOT true before SEARCHING for it first? It just don’t sound right nor open.

Science is about doing what is testable. It searches for the truth without ever saying that it has found truth. The supernatural simply cannot be tested under the scientific method. However, you could take certain materialistic claims made by scripture, and test them out. The problem that I see with doing this, is that scripture is largely concerned with the spirit, not the physical universe.

Here is a good video that I think will help explain the problem with this a little better I hope. This guy is a Christian and knows both theology and science. [youtube]qrSYSmxuwj0[/youtube]
YouTube - Lesson 15/16: Concordism vs. Accommodation

Right, I did not say God could be put in a test tube, but can’t the spirit realm be put in it? Not the whole realm of course, it’s too big for that too, but they can at least try to develop ways to detect it.

Many people have tried to develop ways to contact the spirit realm, but none of it is science. How can you take a method to understand the natural, and use it to detect the supernatural? It just can't be done.

I think spiritual experiences like out of body or near death can be treated as scientific, how they verify things and then find out when they come back to their body that it was true what they verified.

When you die, your body sends a flood of chemicals, with a ton of endorphins (chemicals that give you euphoria), to the brain. These chemicals can cause intense hallucinations and extreme sensations. There is no real way to verify anything these people on scientific grounds. All science can say is that a rush of chemicals went into the brain that can cause extreme euphoria and hallucinations. If you decide that such experiences are spiritual, you can't back it up scientifically, yet it cannot be disproved by science either. I personally think that God works in mysterious ways and that God does use these experiences (at least some) to change people's lives. However, that is my opinion.

Ok, but if that is not what DNA is FOR, a CODE or language, if that is not what it’s really for, then why use it?

Because it is helpful to teach basic concepts, that is all. Maybe to add in a little poetry as well, but mainly it is used for teaching purposes.

Again, why even call it a code if that is not EXACTLY what it is? Tell me in your own words, what EXACTLY DNA is?

DNA is a biological molecule that is a double alpha-helix that is composed of an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone with various nitrogenous bases in the middle; adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine.

If it’s not a blue print for our body, nor a code for how our bodies get built, nor a language to communicate to other little machines in our body to use to build us, if DNA is NOT that, what IS it? And then HOW do you KNOW that is what it IS? So I have two questions there for you.

We know its structure through various experiments. Would you like me to go over them?
We know that it is the molecule of inheritance through various experiments as well. Would like me to go over them?

DNA is simply a molecule that is passed down from one generation to the next. The different sequences of the bases (A T G C) is largely responsible for the organisms structure and chemistry. That is the function of DNA, it is not what DNA is.

Well of course it’s not a LITERAL human made lock and key, but is it a lock and key MADE by God? If not, what IS it literally? And how do you know?

It is a metaphor. The "lock" is the enzyme itself. The "key" is the substrate that binds to the enzyme. Each enzyme is substrate specific - it is analogous to having a square binding site on the enzyme and the substrate to be square shaped (and the right size). It is a very good metaphor to teach people that enzymes are substrate specific; much like you can't fit a non-square shape perfectly into a square shaped hole, only the right molecule will bind to the right site.

However, the metaphor breaks down once you get into the more nitty gritty part. It turns out that there can be some slight variation between the substrates; the "key" part of the analogy; as described by something called "induced fit". (I know we could go on about 'master keys' and such, but there is no 'master substrate'. It is simply a metaphor used to teach people basic concepts and is not meant for in-depth analysis)

That is what I am going to do now, I am just going to ask all kinds of questions, you don’t mind do you?

As long as they are sincere and appropriate.

Yea, 100 dollars is expensive, at least right now it is, since I am trying to wipe out some debt with having a second job. But perhaps after I get that wiped out I will get it and read it. But don’t they have biology textbooks you can get at the library?

Also I don’t see how knowledge costs, or seldem free. Just doing a simple google search I found this online biology textbook for FREE. An On-Line Biology Book now I don’t know if it’s a good one or not, but it sure is a FREE one.

I doubt they will having anything too technical at a local library, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look, sometimes libraries will surprise you. I quickly looked over the first 3 lessons (Intro, chem 1 and 2) on the bio book. The material is probably accurate. I would view the book as an overview of what you might expect from an introductory bio course, which is basically what the person who made these lessons says at the bottom of the page. The only thing I'll caution you about reading it is that some of the things mentioned could be out of date, like in the first lesson they talk about 5 kingdoms and the possibility of adding a 6th, now there are just 5 kingdoms classified under 3 domains.

Also when you say “introductory level textbook” do you mean there are OTHER biology textbooks that go deeper then the introductory level? If so, how many biology textbook levels are there before it reaches the end?

Yes, many more. There is no set number, and I don't think it ever ends. But eventually you will stop reading textbooks and only use them as references and focus more on reading journals like "Science" and "Nature". Maybe Painted Wolf can tell you about how many biology textbooks you would need to get through 4 years of school. Off the top of my head, I would say it is around 10-12, and that is not counting any chemistry, physics or math/statistics you would need to take as well, just biology.

I am asking because I want to know how much I would need to read in order to absolutely know everything there is to know on biology that is up to date.

Well, it usually takes about 4-5 years being a full-time student in college to be essentially introduced to your field of interest. That would be equivalent of a BA or BS 4 year degree. After that it usually takes 2-3 years to get a masters and then another 2 years for a PhD. Learning everything is unrealistic, biology is a very wide field. I say learn the basics, and when you find something you really like learning about, focus in that one area.

 

[RedOne77]

Yea, why did they call water “water”?

No idea.

Maybe discriminate them by saying “string like structure number 1” and “string like structure number 2”

Then all you would do is memorize numbers.
It would be much harder. And one of the categories, "intermediate filaments", has dozens of different types. And it is not like they are random. Microtubules are made up of tubulin, and actin filaments are made up of actin, so there is continuity there.

Ok, what is deoxyribonucleic Acid (or DNA)?

A biological molecule that is a double alpha-helix that is composed of an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone with various nitrogenous bases in the middle; adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine.

But that is ok, right? Is it necessary to have the little bit more information that the professor will give you?

It's not necessary I suppose. I just think it is a good idea to have someone who really knows what they are talking about that you can turn to where they are obligated to answer you.

Are you going to be a biologist or what are you going for?

As of now I want to double major in biology and astronomy, focusing on biology. If that is too much I'll trade in the astronomy major for an astronomy minor. I'll only be entering my second year this fall, so I have time to figure it all out. What I want to do after school is beyond me right now, first I need to get a degree.

So no one is allowed to go to a college library who is not a student huh? Does that rule apply to all colleges?

I think you can get in without being a student. I didn't mean to imply that only students could get in, although I doubt they would let you check out anything unless you were a student or faculty. As far as I know there is nothing stopping you from entering a college library picking up a book and reading it.