Breakthrough in Alzheimer's

[Guest TrueMetis]

From the first line my thought was holy f*ck. If their was some way I could revoke you license to talk about science I would.

That organisms adapt to their environment or evolve is only a part of the whole concept of Evolution. Humans can adapt their environment to themselves contrary to the theory. There is a "missing link" in the theory where it is thought humans bridged over from the animal kingdom. That's a missing part of the concept so it is theorized that there is some jump from apes to human but there is no really in between stage that is a definite explanation of the missing link.

Okay this I explain. The theory of evolution states how organism evolve that organisms evolve is a fact. The definition of evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Quite simply all that means is from one generation to the next animals change, no matter how slight that change that evolution. Human's adapting their environment to them does not contradict evolution, every animal will alter it's environment slightly.

The "missing link" has been found hundreds of them actually, if you expecting some little flip book that goes from monkey to human you've set yourself up for a fall. There will always be hole in the fossil record that's the nature of fossilization, not everything fossilizes. What we have now though are more than enough species going from our ancestor to us to say with as complete certainty as possible to say we evolved from monkey's. Then you've got you bull idea that we "bridged over from the animal kingdom" I got news for ya, never happened no scientist claims it happened. Humans still are and always will be firmly in the animal kingdom, it's impossible for us to be otherwise. There was no jump from apes to humans, for the simple and obvious reason that we are apes, we evolved from apes therefore we are and always will be apes, monkeys to. As for the "in between stage" every fossil we find is by definition an in between stage. Just as we are an in between stage for whatever thing(s) we evolve into which would still be an animal, ape and monkey.

The other part of the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life except as electro-chemical reactions which means that matter existed before life. Creationists would refute that and say that life (probably as God) preexisted matter.

That's abiogenisis not evolution. And of course matter existed before life. Creationists are idiots why would I listen to what they have to say?

It indeed does seem rather unlikely that matter and space came into being without purpose or because time implies a beginning and an end that matter could possibly have no beginning and thus no end.

Time didn't come into play until the universe had already started to expand, and we don't know that the universe did begin.

The only thing that could exist outside of time would be what we call life.

No, life exists firmly within time. I don't see how life could exist with out it because life requires cause and effect, which only exists if time does.

Edited August 9, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Guest TrueMetis]

So in real terms the big debate is about whether there is a beginning or there isn't a beginning to the physical universe. If time exists as part of the physical universe then time must have a beginning.

No, because time didn't start working until the universe had already begun to expand.

Or as creationists argue God, the Prime Mover, or whatever it is termed,(life) created time and is the only thing that could have no beginning and no end as it existed prior to time.

Oh cool a chance to quote Carl Sagan.

The first minute is the really important bit but it's all good.

So a theory explains some or most, depending upon it's accuracy, of the phenomena observed and provides information for practical application and prediction. As long as there are unexplained phenomena it remains a theory. A later theory that includes the explanation of previously unexplained phenomena as well as already explained phenomena by a previous theory or theories would be more accurate but to entirely shed the label of theory, and become fact the theory would have to explain all phenomena, provide practical application of it's findings and provide laws of prediction in the practical application of the works and explain any new discoveries or predict new discoveries. It is no longer then a theory.

A theory is always a theory, it can never become more than a theory and it certainly can't become a fact. Why? because a theory is made up of facts, a theory explains those facts. Evolutionary theory explains the fact of evolution.

Will either the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism

explain all things? They are both theories still and not facts yet.

So both need either some modification or a new theory will combine and explain the shortfalls of both, or completely discredit one or the other or both.

Your an Idiot. The tax payers should demand the money that went to your education back because your teachers clearly failed you. They didn't even teach you the scientific meaning of theory. BTW creationism isn't a theory it's blind speculation without any evidence backing it up. It hasn't gotten to the point of hypothesis yet.

[Bonam]

BTW creationism isn't a theory it's blind speculation without any evidence backing it up. It hasn't gotten to the point of hypothesis yet.

And, of course, never will.

[Yesterday]

A theory is always a theory, it can never become more than a theory and it certainly can't become a fact. Why? because a theory is made up of facts, a theory explains those facts. Evolutionary theory explains the fact of evolution.

A theory is nothing more than the interpretation of either fact or belief. They are made up of beliefs as much as facts.

[Guest TrueMetis]

A theory is nothing more than the interpretation of either fact or belief. They are made up of beliefs as much as facts.

So do you believe in gravity? That's a theory to.

[Bonam]

So do you believe in gravity? That's a theory to.

What is this "gravity" you speak of? Objects move only as God wills them to...

[Guest TrueMetis]

What is this "gravity" you speak of? Objects move only as God wills them to...

Oh ya right, intelligent falling.

[Yesterday]

So do you believe in gravity? That's a theory to.

Yup, I think I can say I believe in gravity. Do you? It's quite a theory and over the years quite a few facts have arisen to show great plausability to the concept wouldn't you say?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yup, I think I can say I believe in gravity. Do you? It's quite a theory and over the years quite a few facts have arisen to show great plausability to the concept wouldn't you say?

I can say I don't believe in gravity I accept it as the fact it is.

[Yesterday]

I can say I don't believe in gravity I accept it as the fact it is.

?

[bloodyminded]

Everything is a theory.

Nope. The word means something, and that something is not "everything."

[Yesterday]

View PostBonam, on 08 August 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

Everything is a theory.

Nope. The word means something, and that something is not "everything."

How about...Theory is everything. To theorize is to partake in the most wondrous of human drives which is to have a reason why/how for everything.

[bloodyminded]

How about...Theory is everything. To theorize is to partake in the most wondrous of human drives which is to have a reason why/how for everything.

I only meant that we were using "theory" as scientists use it. (This wasn't my formulation, so isn't pedantic; it was a theme of the thread.) So it doesn't apply to everything, but demands a fairly rigorous method to get there.

If I declare "all conservatives are pedophiles," that is only a "theory" in the most promiscuous connotation of the word.(And is roughly how Creationists view it; that is, self-indulgently.)

Edited August 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest TrueMetis]

If I declare "all conservatives are pedophiles," that is only a "theory" in the most promiscuous connotation of the word.(And is roughly how Creationists view it; that is, self-indulgently.)

In Science that's not a theory, it's blind speculation. I think what Bonam meant was that in science everything is a theory, Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Germ Theory, Abiogenisis, Heliocentric-ism, etc. All of these things are theories. None of them are facts, because a theory is built using facts.

[bloodyminded]

In Science that's not a theory, it's blind speculation. I think what Bonam meant was that in science everything is a theory, Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Germ Theory, Abiogenisis, Heliocentric-ism, etc. All of these things are theories. None of them are facts, because a theory is built using facts.

If that's what he meant, then I retract my criticism.

[Bonam]

If that's what he meant, then I retract my criticism.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't specific enough. In the context, I was referring to science, rather than to just any old statement/assertion that someone might make.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If that's what he meant, then I retract my criticism.

I'm just speculating there, we'll have to wait for him to confirm or deny that.

Edited August 11, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Yesterday]

View PostBonam, on 08 August 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

Everything is a theory.

bloodyminded, on 11 August 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Nope. The word means something, and that something is not "everything."

How about...Theory is everything. To theorize is to partake in the most wondrous of human drives which is to

have a reason why/how for everything

I only meant that we were using "theory" as scientists use it. (This wasn't my formulation, so isn't pedantic; it was a theme of the thread.) So it doesn't apply to everything, but demands a fairly rigorous method to get there.

If I declare "all conservatives are pedophiles," that is only a "theory" in the most promiscuous connotation of the word.(And is roughly how Creationists view it; that is, self-indulgently.)

I was just being silly, playing with the words.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't specific enough. In the context, I was referring to science, rather than to just any old statement/assertion that someone might make.

Maybe you weren't but it was fun...

[Pliny]

Genetic memory...how much of what we experience that we can connect to a past beyond birth could come from genetic memory? Is it possible that genetically produced sensorimotor memory could contain in forms not related to imagery or language, identifiable information akin to the storing of traumatic experience in a non image specific way that gets accessed in specific situations and utilized by imagery facilitating full recall. (darn it I can't remember the other term for the image related memory tissue)...

This could allow for the past being non-existent yet allow for both a predetermined effect on the future and most meta-physical experiences.

Well, yes there has to be some genetic memory. What would develop out of no memory?

I see a coming together, however roughly, of science and philosophy through quantum physics but religion is going to be the tough one to ever bring on board anything other than a god of some sort.

Well, by religion I don't mean an organized institution I mean the belief in a god or the spiritual aspect of life.

[Pliny]

In Science that's not a theory, it's blind speculation. I think what Bonam meant was that in science everything is a theory, Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Germ Theory, Abiogenisis, Heliocentric-ism, etc. All of these things are theories. None of them are facts, because a theory is built using facts.

Theories try to explain the observations and phenomena but they are theories because there are still questions the theory does not answer. For instance, there is no detectable energy that explains gravity. There is a force but there does not seem to be an energy connected to it. We can observe it and we can make laws regarding it but what it is is still trying to be explained.

The theory of electricity was originally and basically that electrons traveled down a conductor. From the theory we developed uses for electricity and were able to control it. The theory has changed somewhat with advances in physics but it hasn't, and no theory has, been determined to be truth.

Now Bonam said everything is a theory and I know that science never commits to saying they have discovered a truth so that is why Bonam would say that. I have found out in discussions with

science proponents that nothing is known with 100% certainty.

So science is leading us to uncertainty where knowing is not a possibility. However, as True Metis argues, only science can come close to truth. As for the masses, of which I am a member, they are idiots and cannot even feed themselves, let alone think.

The more one understands of science the closer he is to the truth.

It is not necessary to listen to differing opinions whatsoever. It is necessary to be a scientist to have an opinion and all others are of no consequence. Reminds me of the 1500's and the Spanish Inquisition.

I speak blasphemy.

There are reasons that there are Creationists. It is because science has not adequately provided an answer to life and the origins of the universe and man's relation to it. In fact it has no answer to life and proposes it is nothing more than electro-chemical processes, in fact denying any existence of the spirit or whatever it is the body houses that animates it and makes it aware of itself.

Well I know a few things and one is that all True Metis is is an electro-chemical process and he knows this too. He could become someone but he won't choose that. He will remain an electro-chemical process. He has already made that choice and is perhaps trying to get some synapses snapping and popping. He is upset that other people don't know they are just electro-chemical processes, his electro-chemical processing is far superior, for some reason. I don't know...better electro's? Superior chemicals? More tightly packed neurons?

Well...science is returning us to the mud from whence we came. We must keep those synapses burning...oh sorry did I say that...they will just keep burning anyway and dictate what the body shall do.

I wonder if our decisions change the electro chemical process but then that would just be another electro-chemical process.

What's the sense in that?

The road we are following in this scientific process is one that will lead us to intolerance of opinion and the individual without a voice. Sound familiar?

[Bonam]

Theories try to explain the observations and phenomena but they are theories because there are still questions the theory does not answer. For instance, there is no detectable energy that explains gravity. There is a force but there does not seem to be an energy connected to it. We can observe it and we can make laws regarding it but what it is is still trying to be explained.

The theory of electricity was originally and basically that electrons traveled down a conductor. From the theory we developed uses for electricity and were able to control it. The theory has changed somewhat with advances in physics but it hasn't, and no theory has, been determined to be truth.

Now Bonam said everything is a theory and I know that science never commits to saying they have discovered a truth so that is why Bonam would say that. I have found out in discussions with

science proponents that nothing is known with 100% certainty.

So science is leading us to uncertainty where knowing is not a possibility. However, as True Metis argues, only science can come close to truth. As for the masses, of which I am a member, they are idiots and cannot even feed themselves, let alone think.

Semantically, a theory in science, is, like I said, always a theory. However, in practice, certain theories, within their range of validity, have such a vast and incontrovertible bulk of evidence supporting them that they are treated as "laws". For example, though we know the Newtonian theory of gravity to not be "the truth", it is all that is needed to explain the majority of everyday Earthbound gravitational phenomena. So, when a scientist or engineer is trying to understand or design something in that context, they can use that theory and its predictions.

Similarly, even if existing theories of electromagnetism, relativity, etc, turn out to be not wholly complete, nevertheless they provide practically "true" knowledge about the phenomena and situations to which they are applicable. So science is not "leading us to uncertainity". Science sheds light on how the universe works, and, as it progresses, it brings to light ever more of the workings of the universe. The fact that there is ever more left to discover does not take away from the value of science, but adds to it.

The more one understands of science the closer he is to the truth.

It is not necessary to listen to differing opinions whatsoever. It is necessary to be a scientist to have an opinion and all others are of no consequence. Reminds me of the 1500's and the Spanish Inquisition.

I speak blasphemy.

No real scientist will tell you anything along those lines. Any individual, to whatever extent his interest and intelligence permits, can learn science and form valid opinions based upon it. What is frustrating to some people is when an individual with little/no knowledge of a scientific subject makes up a bunch of nonsense and spouts it out. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it is incorrect, but others are equally entitled to be annoyed by that opinion.

There are reasons that there are Creationists. It is because science has not adequately provided an answer to life and the origins of the universe and man's relation to it. In fact it has no answer to life and proposes it is nothing more than electro-chemical processes, in fact denying any existence of the spirit or whatever it is the body houses that animates it and makes it aware of itself.

Umm, the existence of creationists has nothing to do with the extent to which science explains any of the phonemena you mention adequately. Science, through evolution, beautifully explains the development of life on Earth from simple organisms to the complex forms we see today, with a vast wealth of evidence to support this theory. Despite this very adequate explanation, proponents of intelligent design continue to exist. They believe in intelligent design not because no adequate answer has been "provided" by science, but because they would rather believe what they want to believe. People will believe whatever they want, in the face of even very powerful evidence, if they want it to be true (or fear it to be true).

Well I know a few things and one is that all True Metis is is an electro-chemical process and he knows this too. He could become someone but he won't choose that. He will remain an electro-chemical process. He has already made that choice and is perhaps trying to get some synapses snapping and popping. He is upset that other people don't know they are just electro-chemical processes, his electro-chemical processing is far superior, for some reason. I don't know...better electro's? Superior chemicals? More tightly packed neurons?

He is, as am I, as are you, both "someone" and an "electro-chemical process" (not a fully correct term for a mammalian lifeform but whatever). The recognition and understanding of the biological machinery that comprises one's body and mind does not preclude one from being a "person".

Well...science is returning us to the mud from whence we came.

What?

I wonder if our decisions change the electro chemical process but then that would just be another electro-chemical process.

What's the sense in that?

Why are you so offended by the information that the human brain works through "electro-chemical processes". It is no less for being so.

The road we are following in this scientific process is one that will lead us to intolerance of opinion and the individual without a voice. Sound familiar?

The social issues which you mention here have no relation to the purpose of science, which is to understand how the world works. What society does with that knowledge is in the realm of politics and philosophy, not science.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

No, because time didn't start working until the universe had already begun to expand.

Time didn't start working until the universe had begun to expand?

Well, if there were no time then how did anything continue?

A theory is always a theory, it can never become more than a theory and it certainly can't become a fact.

The theory was that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

It seemed plausible at the time. The sun came up in the west and went down in the east.

It is plain that the sun goes round the earth. If you cannot see that then you are a fool.

Would that have been your argument against Galileo?

Why? because a theory is made up of facts, a theory explains those facts. Evolutionary theory explains the fact of evolution.

No. Facts are gathered and a theory postulated. The facts may be proven incorrect or later facts may invalidate them and adjustments to the theory need to be made.

A theory is a theory. It is not a truth. And science will not admit to a truth in the absolute sense.

Your an Idiot. The tax payers should demand the money that went to your education back because your teachers clearly failed you. They didn't even teach you the scientific meaning of theory. BTW creationism isn't a theory it's blind speculation without any evidence backing it up. It hasn't gotten to the point of hypothesis yet.

Blind speculation? No. Creationists are aware of being aware just a step above being an electro-chemical reaction. You have to be aware that you are an electro-chemical reaction first then you may be able to advance from there.

[Pliny]

Semantically, a theory in science, is, like I said, always a theory. However, in practice, certain theories, within their range of validity, have such a vast and incontrovertible bulk of evidence supporting them that they are treated as "laws". For example, though we know the Newtonian theory of gravity to not be "the truth", it is all that is needed to explain the majority of everyday Earthbound gravitational phenomena. So, when a scientist or engineer is trying to understand or design something in that context, they can use that theory and its predictions.

Precisely. I don't believe I have argued any different.

My objection is to present a "theory" as being all that may be considered valid. Certainly the theory of evolution contains very valid observations.

True Metis may reject the theory of Creationists or any theory. He can call it dumb he can call it idiotic he can say that there is vast and incontrovertible evidence to prove him right.

But really there is still a question as to whether or not the objective universe exists. It has been postulated and a few facts point to the fact it doesn't.

If vast and incontrovertible evidence starts to pile up favouring that theory then the idiot becomes the believer in the objective universe.

You may reject that very hypothesis but that is the start of all theories. They are ideas first.

Similarly, even if existing theories of electromagnetism, relativity, etc, turn out to be not wholly complete, nevertheless they provide practically "true" knowledge about the phenomena and situations to which they are applicable. So science is not "leading us to uncertainity". Science sheds light on how the universe works, and, as it progresses, it brings to light ever more of the workings of the universe. The fact that there is ever more left to discover does not take away from the value of science, but adds to it.

It is science that will tell us how the universe works.

I am always looking for how the universe works but lately science seems to be gone astray. True Metis does not exhibit the traits or character of an individual but of a zealot. It is perhaps not the cause of science that he adheres and promotes it with religious fervor. And I think science would blush at the idea that it would produce such an effect on a human being. On the other hand that effect serves a purpose to others who would encourage his zealotry.

Although science has yet to discover how the universe works it is believed by those true believers in science, the skeptics, that it is entirely the realm of science and nothing outside the hallowed halls of science has any validity whatsoever.

This intolerance of point of view is what I consider leading "us"(the general populace) to uncertainty. Anything left to explain about the universe must be explained by science. We may as well not even bother thinking about it.

I understand why the theory of evolution is accepted by so many.

I also understand why Creationism, or intelligent design, is accepted. I also know why you can't argue with either of them about their "beliefs". Really there is some truth in both.

No real scientist will tell you anything along those lines. Any individual, to whatever extent his interest and intelligence permits, can learn science and form valid opinions based upon it. What is frustrating to some people is when an individual with little/no knowledge of a scientific subject makes up a bunch of nonsense and spouts it out. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it is incorrect, but others are equally entitled to be annoyed by that opinion.

I understand. I have little/no knowledge of a scientific subject and make up and spout nonsense.

My opinion is that science is fallible and I reject a lot of what I read that others would accept. So prepare to be annoyed.

Umm, the existence of creationists has nothing to do with the extent to which science explains any of the phonemena you mention adequately. Science, through evolution, beautifully explains the development of life on Earth from simple organisms to the complex forms we see today, with a vast wealth of evidence to support this theory.

Yes. It is a good theory about the development of life but does not adequately explain the origination of life or even have a definition of life. A mixture of elements that in some manner creates awareness, or even elements that exist before the creation of awareness seems odd.

Despite this very adequate explanation, proponents of intelligent design continue to exist. They believe in intelligent design not because no adequate answer has been "provided" by science, but because they would rather believe what they want to believe. People will believe whatever they want, in the face of even very powerful evidence, if they want it to be true (or fear it to be true).

In my view it isn't adequate. However, all of the baggage that creationism carries with it I am not about to accept either. There explanation of the origin of life is just as inadequate in my view.

He is, as am I, as are you, both "someone" and an "electro-chemical process" (not a fully correct term for a mammalian lifeform but whatever). The recognition and understanding of the biological machinery that comprises one's body and mind does not preclude one from being a "person".

Not from that limited definition, I agree.

What?

Whatever mud or swamp that life crawled out of.

Why are you so offended by the information that the human brain works through "electro-chemical processes". It is no less for being so.

It is an effect and not a cause.

The social issues which you mention here have no relation to the purpose of science, which is to understand how the world works. What society does with that knowledge is in the realm of politics and philosophy, not science.

Yes. I agree but not entirely. Politics and/or philosophy may ask questions of science for their own purposes. Because certain scientists agreed with Eugenics and the purity of race it was promoted. Would you see the genetic inferiority of a Jew or would you see a human being. You would see a human being.

If someone tells me that the electro-chemical processes of the brain of a certain race are not as efficient as another race. I could probably find evidence enough to believe that science if I was ever inclined to. I am not inclined to because I believe in the capability of each person and race is an irrelevant factor. But if I just consider there is only an electro chemical function that determines capability then I may be inclined to believe race to be a factor if science says it is.

[bloodyminded]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't specific enough. In the context, I was referring to science, rather than to just any old statement/assertion that someone might make.

Considering things you've said on the topic, it should have been obvious to me anyway.