Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

Originally posted by Umbra Sideralis
I think what the topic asks is impossible to answer...
if a real and serious scientific theory is made, it needs to be suported by some kind on evidence, our it will not be scientific at all.

Exemple:

- Some kind of evidence is find.
- It can raise some serious questions/doubts.
- A theory is formed.
- Untill some kind of Scientific experiment to be made, or a proff to be presented, it will continue to be just a theory.

it's not possible to create scientific theorys with out any kind of evidences.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Umbra Sideralis]

That was sort of the point of this thread. Though he'd never admit it, madness started this thread as an ID bash... but it hasn't turned out that way so much.

Now that mel's here though... ID is likely to get its share too

What about quantum physics; that's pretty abstract.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna

I think it is better that we move step-by-step. DNA, the basis of heredity, is an imperfect replicator. When it is copied it can produce errors, some of these errors will persist in the genome - some will be detrimental, many neutral, a few beneficial to the organism. This is the basis of variation within a species. Nature will select the most adaptive variations via capacity to survive and reproduce. That is, those who adapt best, pass on their genes most successfully. The more unadaptive genes will reduce in frequency or even be lost.

Is that understood? We'll move on to the next stage when you are ready.

The DNA you are focusing on is only a small portion of the entire DNA. The other part which is often referred to as “junk DNA” is not ‘junk’ at all and is the major part you have missed. But as for your limited approach, we may certainly begin here.

Who said I was just focusing on certain parts of DNA? At this point we find these portions as being 'junk', doesn't mean they are useless or do nothing. We just have no evidence they are important. I have a room full of what I consider junk, do you think some people could find it useful? Do you accept that DNA is the molecule of heredity? That your DNA is more similar to members of your family than other people?

OK, so as far as the ToE is concerned, individuals within species show variation. Nature will select the most adaptive collection of traits, these will be more succesful in passing their genes to the next generation. Say we have two populations of the same species, one becomes separated (maybe they cross a river, mountain etc). The two populations will be unable to swap genes, yes? As we know, DNA is an imperfect replicator, new genes will appear in the population over time. If they are beneficial they will spread through the gene pool. Any negative genes produced will reduce how successful those individuals are, these genes may persist (they may have some other beneficial trait, such as those genes underlying sickle-cell anaemia) or they may die out.

Now we have two separated populations, if for example, on one side of the river, the best food is found in a local shallowish lake, the other-side, in small bushes, different traits will be more successful on each side of the river. On the bush side, the population will tend towards a ground loving species, they adapt to this life, they are short stocky animals. However, on the other side, the species have started to hunt in water. These species start to select trait that confer an advantage to hunting in water, maybe paddle-like webbed feet, body becomes stream-lined. Give this situation 100,000 years, do you think it is possible that the separated species would look rather different?

If you get this, we'll move on.

I see you assume that spirituality is the same thing as superstition, but you failed to answer my question to you earlier regarding the fact that you can control the personality, and as such are not BOUND by it. Those who think negatively do become sick but if they can balance this with physical methods than it is certainly worth doing. Why pray when you can eat of the leaf? I agree that health is not defined ONLY by spirituality but you cannot simply ignore the health befits of reinforcement of thought and emotion and the spiritual connection to health.

Nah, not really, I'm just playing. We know that superstition does not require belief in spirituality or religion, it is common to it though. Did you know that Pigeons show superstitious behaviour?

Back in the time of the Old Testament and of Atlantis and Lemura, do you have any idea how long people lived? Would you care to examine the historical records provided by Mystics which verify such long life without modern medicine? What do you suppose goes into a RX drug today? Do they not take mostly an herb and simply intensify it, or remove the alkaloids and enzymes? What about mental health? Are people mentally healthier taking the vaccines today and do you think that “Sam” whom I spoke of above, was getting better with all those Psychotropic brain altering drugs he was taking? Ever wonder why all those youngsters decided to murder their entire families? I’ll tell you it’s not because of television but has something to do with Psychotropic drugs.

Scientific evidence suggests homo sapien has been around for 200,000 years. You have no credible objective evidence to contradict this. Mystics and divination need not apply.

You never answered my question about negative effects of herbs. Is there documented evidence of side-effects, such as liver damage and death?

You seem to focus solely on one case that failed, there are many that do not. Herbs also have side-effects, they have killed people, they have caused liver damage, they do not always work. Because they are not tested properly, the negative impact of many such treatments are probably unknown and underestimated. Of course, you'll probably just use some form of divination and explain negative effects as being an unwell aura or some such pseudo-science.

You want to hold science to unattainable evidential standards but could not even approach a modicum of credibility with your version of truth and science. We need to prove the world, you'll just handwave and consult entrails.

I never made any claim about my faith being something for you to accept, or teach to students. That is personal but if you agree with me on this than might suggest that the thought and emotion does indeed, carry a life of its own and can have an effect over the human beings personality. Are most Ghost-writers really scientists, may be that is the question I should have made clear, as to not insult those Greats in the field of science.

There are many things that science cannot answer, cannot explain. Knowing theories of cognitive psychology such as Beck's cognitive triad, yes, how you think can affect your state of mind. Clinical psycholgists use these theories to treat patients.

But we also know that there is a large chunk of the mind that we do not control, it is rapid, automatic, involuntary and has a big effect on behaviour. This is one area that Freud was correct - the unconscious.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

I think your are conflating scientific psychology with the practitioning of clinical psychology and psychiatry.

Let’s take your example of saying that “practicing of clinical psychology and psychiatry” is different than “scientific psychology” – let us assume you are correct. If we are to take “clinical psychology and psychiatry” and insert the word “evolution” would this make it any more clear? So, I ask you to define the difference between “scientific evolution” and the “practice of laboratory or clinical evolution”, would that mean that “clinical evolution” is not a science? If, so that would be exactly my point. No matter if you have something in theory; it still remains “theory” unless someone can actually put it to test and so you cannot call it a science without experimental data on at least one test subject. The practice of something must come out of the some theory behind it. So, if you are claiming that to be the case, then evolution has even less evidence to go by in both theory and practice than does psychology and psychiatry. This does not help you prove your case.

Personality disorders are very poorly understood. They are generally untreatable, if there are elements of the condition that can be treated, for example, someone with the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder may be treated with SSRI's, which are an effective treatment for OCD. However, it will not completely solve the problem. There are no cures in psychiatry, they treat the symptoms, not the underlying cause. There is more than one personality disorder, so I think it is you who is suggesting the one-size fits all scenario.

First of all, you nor any psychologist and psychiatrist have the right to come up with a fancy name for any so-called personality disorder, when there exists no scientific testing for chemical or biological stability, to prove the VERY EXISTANCE of the disorder so-named. These people are simply guessing and that does not grant them any right to think that OCD can be treated by drugs, or anything else for that matter. If a person happens to get well, what proof do they have that the drugs helped, when they cannot even produce a damn chart to show the chemical break-down of the mind, or the effect of the drug on the brain. What if people got better through placebo, can they prove this? If anything the body needs only food as medicine and if the drug happened to very helpful than it was due to the suppression of, or the balancing out of, the opposing forces in the body but they are still using the drugs to treat something often very “esoteric”. Esoteric is of the MIND and by only treating the brain and the body, such that they have barely begun to understand these natures, they can at times make it far worse then before. Therefore, they may as well pull out an Ouija board and start dancing around like idiots. Now that is not proper science, its called “guessing” and until man learns to become a proper psychotherapist, they must be very careful before deciding on this or that disorder; for I hear about a new disorder every day on the radio – the latest being something to do with eating too many cookies! This is very subjective, and subjectivity is not a proper science to be applied to personality by using drugs.

For every one single case you show where treatment didn't help, there will be others that did. As a researcher who has mixed with schizophrenics, I can assure you that clozapine and the new atypicals do improve negative symptoms in these patients. However, atypicals also have side-effects, they are not perfect, they don't suit every schizophrenic. But they do help an individual have a chance of normality, some even hold down jobs where this was previously impossible. It a useful option. You can try any talking cure you like with schizophrenia, you won't get anywhere.

These drugs tend to suppress the brain and neural pathways which can at times, allow them to survive in a groggier state and feel more comfortable, yes. So they can fit in and so the drugs appear to be very effective. Many drugs do this and just as aspirin only mask the pain, so do these various drugs mask the true cause. I do not believe that the drug companies who are making these drugs have a proper bases in determining the disorders to begin with, and as such what are they doing making drugs that supposedly cure, that which they are not able to prove scientifically? Again, some success rate means “got lucky” and it is not a proper scientific application by merely using charts and waves to show success or failures when it does not take into account the other external factors. It’s like playing the stock market – unless you know it’s rigged no slide rule will help you and as such an art form, is not easy thing to place a slide rule to.

Back to psychology, I can't talk about clinical psychology in wherever you find yourself, but in the UK, clinical psychologists are not medical doctors. They cannot prescribe. They use talking cures, behavioural treatments, cognitive-behavioural therapy, exposure therapies, and other non-medical treatments. They can in some circumstances suggest to a medical doctor possbile medicative solutions, but the MD must agree and prescribe.

I respect both professions and there differences but they should be used as a guide ONLY and not a science. The very fact that court rooms have ruled based upon these pseudo-sciences is evidence that something is amiss here and I don’t people should be calling it science. Where I come from, psychologists are simply psychiatrists without the MD, so to speak. In other words, we have many psychologists today but psychiatrists tend to more often have the final say over any, psychologist. This may sound superficies’ and disrespectful to the differences in profession but my good friend who has a doctorate in psychology has a very hard time finding work because many employers are now seeking out the psychiatrists to do the work of psychologist

Some clinical psychologists are the most fervent opposition to the widespread overmedication of certain conditions, in the UK a researcher I know of has forced a review that led to the banning of SSRIs for the treatment of children due to obvious issues with increased risk of suicide in this group.

They are acting like fine human beings and may be also very fine psychologists but I could be a friend and say the exact same thing as they do, for free! Does that mean that being a good guide or friends, or teacher is practicing good science without proper evidence?

But that is clinical psychology, scientific psychology has a totally different focus - advancing knowledge and understanding of the mind and behaviour.

I prefer the idea that they are developing upon their discoveries of the mysterious human mind and finding out that it is near impossible to study the mind with physical equipment. This is why I have a difficult time referring to either the practice, or the theoretical ideas as being scientific.

What you are discussing is very freudian and is not considered science, sorry. It is due to the history between psychology and freud, jung et al, that some see psychology as non-scientific. They are more commonly seen in psychiatry than psychology. So what you propose is that psychology should roll-back to its dark-ages.

What I provided was evidence that most psychiatrists when asked randomly at the 2006 Convention, spoke to evidence that they are not scientists. If they cannot prove their theory in practice then why Melatonin, do you accept it as science in either?

Back to evolution, it has weak theory (more like fantasy) and it shall remain that way forever, because as I have been in contact personally with forces which I will get into here, I already know the truth but having scientists try and find the “riddle of man”, will be so much fun.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Let’s take your example of saying that “practicing of clinical psychology and psychiatry” is different than “scientific psychology” – let us assume you are correct. If we are to take “clinical psychology and psychiatry” and insert the word “evolution” would this make it any more clear? So, I ask you to define the difference between “scientific evolution” and the “practice of laboratory or clinical evolution”, would that mean that “clinical evolution” is not a science? If, so that would be exactly my point. No matter if you have something in theory; it still remains “theory” unless someone can actually put it to test and so you cannot call it a science without experimental data on at least one test subject. The practice of something must come out of the some theory behind it. So, if you are claiming that to be the case, then evolution has even less evidence to go by in both theory and practice than does psychology and psychiatry. This does not help you prove your case.

There is a subtle difference, I'm not surprised you can't see it. A clinical psychologist is seen as 'scientist as practitioner', they use the knowledge gained via scientific psychology to practice a clinical science. I never said that psychiatry and clinical psychology are not science. I'm trying to show why they are different, one treats, one advances knowledge. There are psychologists whose research involves patients, there are clinical psychologists who also research as well as practice.

I treat no-one, I don't care for treating someone, I would rather study them. I consider what I do distinct from a clinical psychologist, we do different degrees, we work in different settings, we have a different approach. You have even posted a video that criticises psychiatry, did you expect it to bother me? I don't care whether a psychiatrist can blood-test for schizophrenia, it has no effect on me.

I don't need to 'prove my case', the eleven year old did it for me. Have you watched it yet?

We have theories, we test them, they make predictions, they can be falsified. We use the scientific method. Remember the duck?

First of all, you nor any psychologist and psychiatrist have the right to come up with a fancy name for any so-called personality disorder, when there exists no scientific testing for chemical or biological stability, to prove the VERY EXISTANCE of the disorder so-named. These people are simply guessing and that does not grant them any right to think that OCD can be treated by drugs, or anything else for that matter. If a person happens to get well, what proof do they have that the drugs helped, when they cannot even produce a damn chart to show the chemical break-down of the mind, or the effect of the drug on the brain. What if people got better through placebo, can they prove this? If anything the body needs only food as medicine and if the drug happened to very helpful than it was due to the suppression of, or the balancing out of, the opposing forces in the body but they are still using the drugs to treat something often very “esoteric”. Esoteric is of the MIND and by only treating the brain and the body, such that they have barely begun to understand these natures, they can at times make it far worse then before. Therefore, they may as well pull out an Ouija board and start dancing around like idiots. Now that is not proper science, its called “guessing” and until man learns to become a proper psychotherapist, they must be very careful before deciding on this or that disorder; for I hear about a new disorder every day on the radio – the latest being something to do with eating too many cookies! This is very subjective, and subjectivity is not a proper science to be applied to personality by using drugs.

There is scientific testing, we may not have a blood-test that determines disease, but we have behaviour and state of mind as our indicator.

We know that OCD can be treated woth drugs, we also know some of the underlying neurological abnormalities that are associated with OCD, there are genes that seem common to OCD. We are advancing knowledge of it all the time. Same with other mental disorders. Our tools may be imperfect, but we know more than you do, obviously.

SSRIs improve symptoms in 60% of OCD sufferers, do you have any proper evidence that your treatments have similar efficacy?

Read up on what we know...

science understands OCD more than you do

These drugs tend to suppress the brain and neural pathways which can at times, allow them to survive in a groggier state and feel more comfortable, yes. So they can fit in and so the drugs appear to be very effective. Many drugs do this and just as aspirin only mask the pain, so do these various drugs mask the true cause. I do not believe that the drug companies who are making these drugs have a proper bases in determining the disorders to begin with, and as such what are they doing making drugs that supposedly cure, that which they are not able to prove scientifically? Again, some success rate means “got lucky” and it is not a proper scientific application by merely using charts and waves to show success or failures when it does not take into account the other external factors. It’s like playing the stock market – unless you know it’s rigged no slide rule will help you and as such an art form, is not easy thing to place a slide rule to.

You can think what you like, the results determine how the knowledge we produce is used. If we can show that our treatment improve life more than your treatments do, we will treat them. If new treatments are shown in proper studies to be more successful, they will be used. When do you start your research?

If we have evidence that certain neurotransmitters are involved in a condition, that we can produce treatments that ameliorate these abnormalities, that they work, improve lifestyle overall. Should we just ignore that and consult your mystics instead?

So tell me what is the true cause of OCD? Schizophrenia?

Bad spirits? Unbalanced Qi?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

”….. These species start to select trait that confer an advantage to hunting in water, maybe paddle-like webbed feet, body becomes stream-lined. Give this situation 100,000 years, do you think it is possible that the separated species would look rather different? If you get this, we'll move on.

I agree with your basic premise. But we also assume that the earth’s gravity, temperature and polar alignment were in the exact same places as today? A Great flood which Plato spoke of seems to suggest that where we now have land or desert, we once had ocean and where we once had ocean we now have land masses – proven by certain fossils or artifacts found in places where they could never have existed unless there once was ocean covering the land etc. If this is the case, we could have had some jump, or space in-between any point of swapping genes. What if also, we can assume that webbed feet was never necessary as the people used a softer form of padding made up of the plants of the oceans and later, from the skins of animals and they not only used these skins to float large object in air (being that the air was incredibly dense at this time) but their feet would did not need to serve any specific purposefulness of changing from webbed feet into flat feet; since we had already known of placing something to cover the feet. But I like this approach you have very much so, let’s take it further on your idea.

Scientific evidence suggests homo sapien has been around for 200,000 years. You have no objective evidence to contradict this. Mystics and divination need not apply.

We have been around for millions of years but our evolution is not linear and the Atantians and Lumerians had bodies far different than us, but there are remains to soon be found; yet not until both Continents begin to rise out of the ocean in the upcoming magnetic Polar shift which was verified by the RAND Corp many years ago. The Souls and entities that exist now in men were once living on another planet, which we manage to destroy and are now circling the sun which we are calling today the asteroid belt. I cannot prove any of this, you are correct but also the Atlantians had particularly large lungs and this is because the earth’s atmosphere was very thick hundreds of thousands of years ago. The red-skinned North American Indians are actually related to the Atlantian race more than any other today.

You never answered my question about negative effects of herbs. Is there documented evidence of side-effects, such as liver damage and death?

Yes, but

"Let food be thy medicine, and let thy medicine be food." Hippocrates

You have an immune system, don’t you? If strong enough, what magic do you suppose there could be found in making it stronger?

“Formally, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.” Thomas Szasz

You seem to focus solely on one case that failed, there are many that do not. Herbs also have side-effects, they have killed people, they have caused liver damage, they do not always work. Because they are not tested properly, the negative impact of many such treatments are probably unknown and underestimated. Of course, you'll probably just use some form of divination and explain negative effects as being an unwell aura or some such pseudo-science.

You mean like Ephedra killed the Baseball player? Oh, yes we are told by scientists that alkaloids were the issue in ephedra, so by thus removing the alkaloids and making it into EPHEDRINE, they now can regulate it as an OTC. Well, more phony science of rather the spin is that they forget to tell us that the baseball player was having 50 times the recommended dosage and he also was de-hydrated drinking no water and playing in over 110 degree temperatures.
The next step will be to classify Ephedrine as an RX and the final step will of course be to sell it as he next drug available for weight loss at higher prices. It’s called Corporatism and Ghost-writing and what side effects you find in herbs, are sometimes the very side-effect that is the purpose in taking the herb in the first. Ephedrine is a nasal decongestant, yet people combine it and take it with caffeine, the side effect of weight loss, see? Thus these cleaver little devil have taken granted to us by nature and taken it to an OTC, and they are now prepared to go into another drug.

You want to hold science to unattainable evidential standards but could not even approach a modicum of credibility with your version of truth and science. We need to prove the world, you'll just handwave and consult entrails.

Instead of tying to fit man into whatever construct of the limitations of the scientifically minded, why not instead try solving the riddle of man instead of finding the way to force man to be worth the most by the hour? All the causes are to be found in us, and not externally and any science that does not see human beings as a microcosm and macrocosm connected to the universe, is biased. The ancients although limited in material evidence had one up on us. The saw that the solar system effected man in other ways and they drew the; planets in a strange manner which we think they were foolish. Yet, they saw man as being a part of the cosmos and thus they understood that we were something more than mere matter. Material science had to develop for man to break out of the Lucifer influence and thus Copernicus was one to first to show us.

But we also know that there is a large chunk of the mind that we do not control, it is rapid, automatic, involuntary and has a big effect on behaviour. This is one area that Freud was correct - the unconscious.

The unconscious mind is in actuality divided like this:

Ego-Soul = Super-Self Consciousness
Permanent Atom = Consciousness
Present Day Personality made up of Thoughts + emotions = sub-consciousness
When in dream state = sub-conscious but mostly unaware of physical body

Certain involuntary actions like the breathing can be disturbed by practicing certain forms of yoga, and are not advised as it can force a man to have to = sub-consciously breath for days and this is horrible. The sub consciousness is what 99.9% of scientist is using now and what they call the intellect and knowing another part of the brain will not bring them much closer but it is still very good for them to study all these things.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna

Back to psychology, I can't talk about clinical psychology in wherever you find yourself, but in the UK, clinical psychologists are not medical doctors. They cannot prescribe. They use talking cures, behavioural treatments, cognitive-behavioural therapy, exposure therapies, and other non-medical treatments. They can in some circumstances suggest to a medical doctor possbile medicative solutions, but the MD must agree and prescribe.

I respect both professions and there differences but they should be used as a guide ONLY and not a science. The very fact that court rooms have ruled based upon these pseudo-sciences is evidence that something is amiss here and I don’t people should be calling it science. Where I come from, psychologists are simply psychiatrists without the MD, so to speak. In other words, we have many psychologists today but psychiatrists tend to more often have the final say over any, psychologist. This may sound superficies’ and disrespectful to the differences in profession but my good friend who has a doctorate in psychology has a very hard time finding work because many employers are now seeking out the psychiatrists to do the work of psychologist

That is because psychology is overpopulated at undergraduate level. Too many people study it and have no chance of finding one of the few jobs available. In this country, there are not enough psychiatrists, but no-one sees the option of training the many psychologists to MD standards.

They are acting like fine human beings and may be also very fine psychologists but I could be a friend and say the exact same thing as they do, for free! Does that mean that being a good guide or friends, or teacher is practicing good science without proper evidence?

But it is no good trying to advance knowledge with your methods. You denigrate all medical treatments for fun. You don't understand what we know or what we do. We use scientific evidence the way it should be used, we assess all available evidence, not what suits you. If we don't know, we use the scientific method to gain understanding.

I prefer the idea that they are developing upon their discoveries of the mysterious human mind and finding out that it is near impossible to study the mind with physical equipment. This is why I have a difficult time referring to either the practice, or the theoretical ideas as being scientific.

You can think what you like. We are advancing knowledge of the mind and behaviour all the time, whether you accept our methods or not.

What I provided was evidence that most psychiatrists when asked randomly at the 2006 Convention, spoke to evidence that they are not scientists. If they cannot prove their theory in practice then why Melatonin, do you accept it as science in either?

We are not in the business of 'proving' theories. We gain evidence to support hypotheses, we build theories around the evidence, we predict, test, attempt to falsify.

If they talk of 'ego-soul', this is pseudoscience, you have no evidence of a soul.

Back to evolution, it has weak theory (more like fantasy) and it shall remain that way forever, because as I have been in contact personally with forces which I will get into here, I already know the truth but having scientists try and find the “riddle of man”, will be so much fun.

If you say so. So you have the divined 'truth' but us mere mortals will provide objective evidence of nature.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
I agree with your basic premise. But we also assume that the earth’s gravity, temperature and polar alignment were in the exact same places as today? A Great flood which Plato spoke of seems to suggest that where we now have land or desert, we once had ocean and where we once had ocean we now have land masses – proven by certain fossils or artifacts found in places where they could never have existed unless there once was ocean covering the land etc. If this is the case, we could have had some jump, or space in-between any point of swapping genes. What if also, we can assume that webbed feet was never necessary as the people used a softer form of padding made up of the plants of the oceans and later, from the skins of animals and they not only used these skins to float large object in air (being that the air was incredibly dense at this time) but their feet would did not need to serve any specific purposefulness of changing from webbed feet into flat feet; since we had already known of placing something to cover the feet. But I like this approach you have very much so, let’s take it further on your idea.

haha, I can see why. When I said 'the species selects the trait, it was a mistake, I meant nature selects the trait. Forgive me, it is hard discussing about 4 completely different subjects at once at past 3am. Just go with what I'm suggesting, I'm trying to show how an otter-like species could evolve from some form of land-mammal.

Tell me if you are happy with that, then I'll carry on (you don't have to agree, but at least you will know what I mean as the ToE, or at least my bastardised version of it - I can feel mattison hovering waiting for a mistake, haha). Then we can discuss it from some position of common understanding.

There is no evidence of a global flood. I don't want to open up another avenue of discussion, I'm having trouble following the numerous strands we have going at the moment, so we can discuss this later if you like.

I don't expect us to agree after all this, but at least you may understand why someone may accept ToE as valid, and maybe why what I do every day is a science, haha.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

haha, I can see why. When I said 'the species selects the trait, it was a mistake, I meant nature selects the trait. Forgive me, it is hard discussing about 4 completely different subjects at once at past 3am. Just go with what I'm suggesting, I'm trying to show how an otter-like species could evolve from some form of land-mammal.

Tell me if you are happy with that, then I'll carry on (you don't have to agree, but at least you will know what I mean as the ToE, or at least my bastardised version of it - I can feel mattison hovering waiting for a mistake, haha). Then we can discuss it from some position of common understanding.

There is no evidence of a global flood. I don't want to open up another avenue of discussion, I'm having trouble following the numerous strands we have going at the moment, so we can discuss this later if you like.

I don't expect us to agree after all this, but at least you may understand why someone may accept ToE as valid, and maybe why what I do every day is a science, haha.

Discussing near anything with the scientifically-minded individual, even if it is about the concept of God, is always a breath of fresh air for me when compared to past conversations I've had with those of the religiously-fanatic opinion. So much easier to deal with the person who see's everything materialistically and are never as hallucinatory as the religious person who hears voices only from God. Had I lived in the dark ages, I often wonder if they would have burned me at the stake? Nonetheless, I like your approach and I’ll leave out the Atlantians for now, loll!

I have to say that if we are to assume that nature does all the selecting for us, than I find it rather difficult NOT to accept ToE as anything but valid. I am curious to hear your views on this whether they be your own or scientific – both interest me.

Originally posted by melatonin
I can feel mattison hovering waiting for a mistake, haha). Then we can discuss it from some position of common understanding.

Well... to be honest with you... I'm not 'monitoring you for mistakes.' I'm perfectly comfortable sitting this one out. I didn't start this one, and cina... whoever he/she is seems to not be backing down, and can finish it or abandom for him/herself.

I only interjected because.... I often feel that people who are supposed to be on I guess what would be considered 'my side' make superfluous and irrelevant arguments.

I mean my goodness... there are lots of relevant things to talk about, and nuances of the definition of 'theory' aren't included in that group.

But in any case, I'll probably be sitting this one out... at least until cinas.... reads the ref, and comes back with something about nylonase.

Which actually brings to mind a point: you may or may not be wondering why I would bring up the example of nylonase as 'evolution' when you 'know' me in an anonymous internet forum kind of way.

I think you 'know' me well enough to realize I am not an unreasonable person, nor am I ignorant re: the issues. But you and I look upon the nylonase issue - that is the same issue, the same evidence and come away with completely different conclusions.

Firstly, let's call the nylonase activity what it is. It is undoubtedly a new enzyme, undoubtedly a new metabolic activity, and thus far appears to be a unique sequence derived not from other proteins, but from what would be traditionally called 'junk DNA,' but is more appropriately gradually being referred to as non-coding DNA, which I appreciate very much. In any case, the activity isn't derivative and appears to be a new adaptation in biology.

Now that being said, I certainly don't accept the evidence for a new enzyme activity as being evidence for the ability of species to gradually morph into other typologies. That is, if you look at the big picture of xenobiotic degradation, it appears that the nylonase activity, and indeed perhaps the entire genus pseudomonas may be part of, or otherwise constitute some type of natural bioremediation mechanism.

The reason I say this is because if you look at xenobiotic degradation as a whole, there are some common themes. The most prominent common theme is the presence of mobile genetic elements of one variety or another. They MGE's include such varied species as plasmids, retrotrasposons, transposons, large regions of repeat and inverted repeat, etc. Given that degradation of xenobiotics seems to be exclusively associated with MGE's, one could reasonably infer these processes are part of some sort of adaptive mechanism, and don't constitute evolution in the colloquial sense of the word, that is the result of random processes.

Just a thought, and an FYI for you.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Yes, but

"Let food be thy medicine, and let thy medicine be food." Hippocrates

You have an immune system, don’t you? If strong enough, what magic do you suppose there could be found in making it stronger?

well, yeah, we would all like a steel-like immune system. But at least we can see that herbs, even though natural, are just as dangerous as other chemical-based treatments when misused/misapplied.

“Formally, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.” Thomas Szasz

Now I like Szasz, I disgree strongly with some of his criticisms but I do like his liberal point of view. I'm not overly fond of medicating any old condition, to see so many children being doped on amphetamines does make me sad. Conversely, I have absolutely no issue with medicating certain conditions when appropriate.

You mean like Ephedra killed the Baseball player? Oh, yes we are told by scientists that alkaloids were the issue in ephedra, so by thus removing the alkaloids and making it into EPHEDRINE, they now can regulate it as an OTC. Well, more phony science of rather the spin is that they forget to tell us that the baseball player was having 50 times the recommended dosage and he also was de-hydrated drinking no water and playing in over 110 degree temperatures.
The next step will be to classify Ephedrine as an RX and the final step will of course be to sell it as he next drug available for weight loss at higher prices. It’s called Corporatism and Ghost-writing and what side effects you find in herbs, are sometimes the very side-effect that is the purpose in taking the herb in the first. Ephedrine is a nasal decongestant, yet people combine it and take it with caffeine, the side effect of weight loss, see? Thus these cleaver little devil have taken granted to us by nature and taken it to an OTC, and they are now prepared to go into another drug.

well using another RAND corps study, 155 deaths have been linked to ephedra, mostly strokes and heart attacks. Ephedrine is an alkaloid by the way, it is the major alkaloid in ephedra.

They already sell OTC ephedrine medication in the USA.

But do you understand the dose-response relationship I mentioned earlier? I have ephedra in my cupboard, occassionally I use it (I also use other herbal 'remedies' and occasionally explore inner space). I have no issue with herbal medicines or the use of them, but they are not so different from pharmaceuticals, they have an active ingredient, they have a dose-response relationship, they have negative side-effects. By altering the chemical formulae we can produce safer forms of these chemicals that have fewer side-effects.

Many have not been tested for efficacy, some have and been shown to be effective. Some have been shown to do nada. The problem with herbal medication is the lack of quality control and assurance, they do not even come close to the standards expected for pharmaceuticals (i.e. consistent level of active, contamination).

But overall, I have no issue with an individual having the choice to use them. But they are not perfect or a cure-all. Just because they are natural does not mean they are completely safe.

Instead of tying to fit man into whatever construct of the limitations of the scientifically minded, why not instead try solving the riddle of man instead of finding the way to force man to be worth the most by the hour? All the causes are to be found in us, and not externally and any science that does not see human beings as a microcosm and macrocosm connected to the universe, is biased. The ancients although limited in material evidence had one up on us. The saw that the solar system effected man in other ways and they drew the; planets in a strange manner which we think they were foolish. Yet, they saw man as being a part of the cosmos and thus they understood that we were something more than mere matter. Material science had to develop for man to break out of the Lucifer influence and thus Copernicus was one to first to show us.

Well I'm glad you see some good in, what I prefer to call, methodological naturalism.

We are trying to solve more than the riddle of man. Believe me, I will follow wherever the evidence will take me. If it provides evidence of atlantians et al., I'll be with you.

The unconscious mind is in actuality divided like this:

Ego-Soul = Super-Self Consciousness
Permanent Atom = Consciousness
Present Day Personality made up of Thoughts + emotions = sub-consciousness
When in dream state = sub-conscious but mostly unaware of physical body

Certain involuntary actions like the breathing can be disturbed by practicing certain forms of yoga, and are not advised as it can force a man to have to = sub-consciously breath for days and this is horrible. The sub consciousness is what 99.9% of scientist is using now and what they call the intellect and knowing another part of the brain will not bring them much closer but it is still very good for them to study all these things.

Well its not how I see the mind. But again, I have no issue with yoga et al. My undergraduate tutor did studies on rabbits that showed they could control blood-flow to each ear independently via conditoning.

Please don't think I have a closed-mind. I do not, my mind is open to possibilities. Although, I will not accept them as valid until I have credible evidence, but without seeing possibilities we move science nowhere. But we do have to constrain ourselves to where the evidence takes us and what the data says.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Mr. Apass, I do not have to prove a negative and I never made the claim of evolution being the true origins of man did I?

Indeed, you never calimed evolution being the true origins of man, but if you don't believe in evolution, maybe you have a theory of your own about how man came to be. If we can not provide you with the specific example that you request it doesn't mean that evolution is not valid! If you use this type of argument you have to apply it to all the theories, including yours. If you say evolution is not wright because we can not provide that example, it means that you have such an example for your theory. If not, using your reasoning, neither your theory is correct. So...do you have that example, those math relations that describe how man came to be, that language of design?

The simple forms of plants found in fossils are still related to the other simple forms found living today.

So, in your own words, evolution does take place (you said related, not identical...).

Furthermore, to go from simple organisms to mammal is another area which I have not seen enough evidence.

I'm not going to try to explain you this, I'll leave this to melatonin because it seams to me he is more willing to do it. But the general ideea is simple. A colony si more adapted than a single cell. From the colony to the multicellular organism is not a very big step...and so on and on.

As for man eating his feces, I’m not sure where you are headed with this but let’s try the KISS approach shall we?

Indeed, lets keep it simple. The survival of the fittest isn't simple enough?
Why is it necesary that all life forms on this planet have to evolve at a similar level as the man did (if evolution is wright)? Is the man fitted to eat his feces or his deads? No. Are the fungi and bacteria fitted for that job? Yes. Why would bacteria and fungi need to evolve into a more complex form comparable to the humans if there is a constant supply of feces (and not only from humans) and dead bodies and they are fitted for that job? Would man survive on feces? No, because his not fitted for that.
You do understand that without the fungi and bacteria to eat our waste we would be engoulghed by it!

I know I said I wasn't watching this thread for mistakes, but this one jumped out at me

Originally posted by Apass
I'm not going to try to explain you this, I'll leave this to melatonin because it seams to me he is more willing to do it. But the general ideea is simple. A colony si more adapted than a single cell. From the colony to the multicellular organism is not a very big step...and so on and on.

First of all, a colony is not 'more adapted' than a single cell. The colony is a genetically identical population that arose from one cell; they're clones of an individual cell, hence the name colony.

From the colony to the multicellular organism is a HUGE step. Perhaps you're familiar with concept of cell types? Colony forming bacteria are prokaryotic cells, multicellular organisms are eukaryotic cells. There certainly is no simple step that takes one from prokaryotic to a eukaryotic cell.

Furthermore, the eukaryotic cells that do exist as single celled organisms lack not only the apparatus, but genetic instructions, as well as the selective pressure to 'evolve' to a multicellular form. A mutlicellular organism is not simply a blob of eukaryotic cells joined together; they're not analogous in any way with the exception of belonging to the same class of cells.

I'll leave the scatology to someone who is more qualified in that department.

Originally posted by mattison0922
First of all, a colony is not 'more adapted' than a single cell. The colony is a genetically identical population that arose from one cell; they're clones of an individual cell, hence the name colony.

And since they're only clones it doesn't make them more fitted to the enviroment? Wright?...Wrong! Because a colony enhances the chances of survival. There are also symbiotic organism like lichens. I now lichens are made of algae and fungi but this is a good example of how cell differention had begun.

And not only the bacteria form colonies....the algae are not bacteria! So it's not a step from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic ones.

Originally posted by Apass
And since they're only clones it doesn't make them more fitted to the enviroment? Wright?...Wrong! Because a colony enhances the chances of survival. There are also symbiotic organism like lichens. I now lichens are made of algae and fungi but this is a good example of how cell differention had begun.

But they're not more adapted. Colony formation may increase chances of survival, but it doesn't make them more adapted, anymore than you living in a house, which increases your chances of survival relative to that of a homeless person, makes you any more adapted. More or better adapted is a term related to the genetic state of an organism, not on things like colony formation. Besides, all bacteria form colonies, so how is one colony more adapted than any other colony?

The symbiotic relationship between algae and fungi in the state commonly referred to as lichen is in no way analogous to tissue differentiation. It's a symbiotic association of different cell types from completely different organisms. That is in no way analogous to cellular differentiation as it occurs in the development of an embryo. Embryonic development and tissue differentiation proceed via a massively complex network of requlatory switches, that must be turned on and off at certain times, and in certain tissues. Furthermore, the symbionts from lichen can be isolated and grown individually in many cases... not so with differentiated cells. Differentiated cells are no longer pluripotent. The two situations are not even close to comparable.

And not only the bacteria form colonies....the algae are not bacteria! So it's not a step from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic ones.

Well, algae mats are not colonies per se, but they certainly are groups of organisms living together. However, as I mentioned in my previous post a group of eukaryotic cells is a far cry from a multicellular organism. An algal mat contains nothing resembling tissue, the cells aren't differentiated, the mat doesn't contain different systems for carrying out particular roles, etc. It's simply a mass of cells that found a nutrient rich spot and is exploiting it.

Interestingly enough, your link says nothing about algae growing in colonies... Literature bluff?

They vary from single-celled flagellates to simple colonial and filamentous forms

That was from my link...
As for the tissue differentiation, you are making an argument based on what is happening today. For the first algae/ plant/ animal that made the transition from colony/symbosys to organism this process doesn't have to be so complex. Lets there were 2 types of cells in a symbiotic structure so strong that they could not leave separately and there was a corss-breeding between them. The new cell could have been the very first of the multicellular organisms.
The lichens are only an example of symbiosys and certanily it is not the only example. The point was that different types of cells can form structures that resemble organisms.

Originally posted by Apass

They vary from single-celled flagellates to simple colonial and filamentous forms

That was from my link...

Whoops! My mistake

As for the tissue differentiation, you are making an argument based on what is happening today.

Ummm... yeah... I'm basing the concept of tissue differentiation off of what is known about multicellular organisms and tissues; I'm not making things up that suit my particular set of needs.

For the first algae/ plant/ animal that made the transition from colony/symbosys to organism this process doesn't have to be so complex. Lets there were 2 types of cells in a symbiotic structure so strong that they could not leave separately and there was a corss-breeding between them. The new cell could have been the very first of the multicellular organisms.

And the evidence that such thing did or could have happened is....

You can postulate all the hypothetical scenarios you wish, but such an event is neither suggested by the evidence of past life, nor is it occuring today.

The lichens are only an example of symbiosys and certanily it is not the only example. The point was that different types of cells can form structures that resemble organisms.

And the point isn't made. Lichens aren't a cell type that resembles a structure from an organism. What structure from which organism does lichen resemble.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna

Discussing near anything with the scientifically-minded individual, even if it is about the concept of God, is always a breath of fresh air for me when compared to past conversations I've had with those of the religiously-fanatic opinion. So much easier to deal with the person who see's everything materialistically and are never as hallucinatory as the religious person who hears voices only from God. Had I lived in the dark ages, I often wonder if they would have burned me at the stake? Nonetheless, I like your approach and I’ll leave out the Atlantians for now, loll!

I have to say that if we are to assume that nature does all the selecting for us, than I find it rather difficult NOT to accept ToE as anything but valid. I am curious to hear your views on this whether they be your own or scientific – both interest me.

Well, we don't see nature as having a consciousness or anything similar. Nature just provides interaction with species, challenges that must be overcome, opportunities to flourish, the species themselves interact (e.g. predator-prey, diseases etc). I have seen some say that we could could consider nature itself as an 'intelligent designer'. But using the KISS analogy or parsimony, it can be viewed as easier to view the world as we observe it. Although, it would in fact be easier to invoke the supernatural to explain phenomena. How did we get here? Goddidit. It's simpler but is it true, should we leave it at that, or try to explain nature without recourse to miracles, using evidence?

So we now have two distinct groups of animals, they may not be able to breed or they may produce hybrids. They are related. If we do genetic analysis we would find their genomes more similar than that with another species.

If there has been sufficient change within the genome via mutation and relocation of genes, the related species may be unable to breed completely (but there aee other reasons why they may not breed, behaviour etc). We would then see them as definite species. Given enough time, the genetic pools of the two species will diverge significantly. We may have more speciation within each population and be able to show the relationships via cladistics (a sort of family tree, which shows genetic relationship).

We know that this can occur, we have laboratory and field experiments that shows speciation. We know mutations have the ability to produce new traits within species (e.g. see Mattison's nylon bug example). We know that species show genetic relatedness, a family tree, that cats are more closely related than dogs, that placental mammals are more closely related than marsupials. So, we have a basis of evolution, genetic change over time or descent with modification.

We also have some interesting living examples of mammals. Monotremes are mammals that lay eggs. We know that monotremes are one of the earliest branches on the mammalian tree (150 million years). Later branching resulted in placental and marsupial mammals.

So we have a large group of animals (class mammalia) that we accept are inter-related, that evolved from a single group of animals. Even though we do not see dogs becoming cats or something similar, we can say they all evolved from a common ancestor (i.e. common descent).

Even before the development of genetic testing, we had this class of animals fairly well-established for relatedness just by assessing morphological similarities of living species and fossil evidence (although genetics has led to some reassessment in a few instances, e.g. skunks are now seen as distinct from mustelidae [otters, polecats etc]). We can use fossils records to delve into the evolutionary past of mammalia and show that monotremes were the first mammalia branching by morphology/fossils and the development of mammal species over time to the present day. At one point in the past we find no fossils of mammals at all. We have a nested hierarchy of species under the class mammalia.

So, I'll ask a simple question at this point.

We know that homo sapien are more closely related to a chimpanzee (96-98% via DNA) than a marmoset, dog, cat, mouse. We even have a broken gene for vitamin C production, so do other primates, they are broken in the same way, at the same place. The only other mammal with this broken gene is the guinea pig. We have fossil evidence of progression over time of earlier ape-like species to the early homo group. We know that there are morphological similarities between the great apes and humans (e.g. brain), as well as behavioural similarities.

Would we have validity to accept that humans evolved over time from earlier form of [proto]ape, which in turn evolved from an earlier mammal using the evidence available? That is, we have a common ancestor?

Next we'll attempt to bridge the gap between classes (e.g. reptile to mammal).

[edit on 13-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mattison0922
And the point isn't made. Lichens aren't a cell type that resembles a structure from an organism. What structure from which organism does lichen resemble.

??? If you were a lay person with no basic knowledge about lichens...would you think of them being a symbiotic life form? Or would you rather believe they are organisms just like others?

Originally posted by Apass
??? If you were a lay person with no basic knowledge about lichens...would you think of them being a symbiotic life form? Or would you rather believe they are organisms just like others?

An organism like all others... actually I don't think I would see that at all. I assume when you mean 'like all others' you mean, more-or-less organisms that a lay person with no access to science equipment would see... so things like farm animals, and animals in general, plants, etc., based on this, I would say... No, I wouldn't consider them to be an organism like all others. Lots of people don't even know lichens are alive... they think they're some kind of 'coating' or build-up on the rock. They don't resemble an organism that would come to mind if you were doing word association, etc. So... I don't think I would assume they were organisms like all others.