Is biology fake?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by louieee
I don't like having blind faith in things I know nothing about :P but I'll let it be, as long as good things keep coming from science I'm all for it.
When a natural phenomena is observed scientists first think of an explanation (a hypothesis) for it. If the empirical evidence is then proved to be significant they accept it as the best explanation, or if it has flaws they modify their proposed explanation. So nothing in science is fixed or would be considered the truth for eternity. We only trust that our current explanations and models are the best fitting to reality.
But you can't say you don't trust what 100% of the scientists in that field have agreed upon (like for example that living things are made up of cells) unless you have a better explanation or model that explains the observations which you most certainly don't. So you won't be taken seriously
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by RoyalBlue7
Just makes it happen? What if scientific explanations of natural phenomena are actually explanations of how God has designed them to work/be. Just saying.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
it could be, yes. It's a possibility/.
A /possibility/
possibility.
Just like it's a possibility that the scientist is wrong.
Or it's a possibility that God doesn't exist.
Barely anyone questioned God back in his day, so scientific development slowed down. Boom, someone went against religious beliefs. Bam, discover much about human anatomy. Bang, such medicinal advances. Poop, more advances which are good. Maybe all it requires to make a super leap in science is to question everything we believe we know, right? But apparently it's "arrogant" to question science, and by doing so I'm "asking for a slap". I can't understand it all :c
but thankyou for you're politeness, at least your points are valid :]
Original post by mikeyd85
Biology is applied chemistry is applied physics.
No, just, no.
Original post by louieee
that I have faith in science
Lol.
It'd be scientifically arrogant to fully accept all scientific theories without even considering other possibilities.
...
I'm just saying we can NEVER be 100% CERTAIN. God, reading ability is so low on here.
...
I'm just saying we can NEVER be 100% CERTAIN. God, reading ability is so low on here.
Your original post stated you doubted the whole system. That's a rather different statement to suggesting that there are different theories at the frontiers of knowledge.
The thing is, science isn't a random collection of facts you can just pick and choose. It is a system. Part of the process of evidence is that there is a coherent system of interrelated facts that explains, parsimoniously, the observed phenomena. So it isn't just that we have seen it in the microscope - it also dovetails with a whole theory of how living organisms work chemically and physically.
And sure, any deductive system will never philosophically amount to "100% certainty OMG", because, of course, that's the nature of empiricism and inductive reasoning. It's a matter of probability, and when it comes to repeatedly and obviously observed phenomena which tie in with other consistently observed and repeated phenomena - we cross a threshold where for practical purposes, for purposes of making actions and living as coherent beings who interact with the world as if it is real and the laws of physics aren't about to fall apart at any moment - we implicitly treat them as true, and seeing as we have no countervailing evidence - why would we?
The probability of this being true is at least far higher than the probability of some deductive fantasy - you know like God, which is one of an infinite number of possible to imagine beings - whose putative existence outside of the framework of a universe we can understand, and is thus one of any number of unknown, uncountable possible beings, gives us but an infinitesimal probability of its truth.
Original post by RoyalBlue7
When a natural phenomena is observed scientists first think of an explanation (a hypothesis) for it. If the empirical evidence is then proved to be significant they accept it as the best explanation, or if it has flaws they modify their proposed explanation. So nothing in science is fixed or would be considered the truth for eternity. We only trust that our current explanations and models are the best fitting to reality.
But you can't say you don't trust what 100% of the scientists in that field have agreed upon (like for example that living things are made up of cells) unless you have a better explanation or model that explains the observations which you most certainly don't. So you won't be taken seriously
Posted from TSR Mobile
But you can't say you don't trust what 100% of the scientists in that field have agreed upon (like for example that living things are made up of cells) unless you have a better explanation or model that explains the observations which you most certainly don't. So you won't be taken seriously
Posted from TSR Mobile
exactly, all science is is "the best explanation". And that's why I like it, because it reflects our development as a species and applies to the modern world. That's why I'm all for science
but I don't need to have a better explanation in order to not trust someone else's. BUttt that's irrelevant, because I do trust science
mostly 
I'm just thinking about it from the other side, so that maybe one day I come up with my own explanation and save humanity :P Until that day, it's best if I'm not taken seriously
Original post by louieee
it could be, yes. It's a possibility/.
A /possibility/
possibility.
Just like it's a possibility that the scientist is wrong.
Or it's a possibility that God doesn't exist.
Barely anyone questioned God back in his day, so scientific development slowed down. Boom, someone went against religious beliefs. Bam, discover much about human anatomy. Bang, such medicinal advances. Poop, more advances which are good. Maybe all it requires to make a super leap in science is to question everything we believe we know, right? But apparently it's "arrogant" to question science, and by doing so I'm "asking for a slap". I can't understand it all :c
but thankyou for you're politeness, at least your points are valid :]
A /possibility/
possibility.
Just like it's a possibility that the scientist is wrong.
Or it's a possibility that God doesn't exist.
Barely anyone questioned God back in his day, so scientific development slowed down. Boom, someone went against religious beliefs. Bam, discover much about human anatomy. Bang, such medicinal advances. Poop, more advances which are good. Maybe all it requires to make a super leap in science is to question everything we believe we know, right? But apparently it's "arrogant" to question science, and by doing so I'm "asking for a slap". I can't understand it all :c
but thankyou for you're politeness, at least your points are valid :]
Well what triggered the Renaissance in Europe was the fall of the Church and the likes. But you're assuming that God exists only for Christianity. I could as well argue that when the people of the Middle East was under one leadership and was religious (900-1300) they made great leaps in scientific understanding of the world.
You can't question science or the scientific method. The scientific method is self-questioning enough.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ferrus
Lol.
Your original post stated you doubted the whole system. That's a rather different statement to suggesting that there are different theories at the frontiers of knowledge.
The thing is, science isn't a random collection of facts you can just pick and choose. It is a system. Part of the process of evidence is that there is a coherent system of interrelated facts that explains, parsimoniously, the observed phenomena. So it isn't just that we have seen it in the microscope - it also dovetails with a whole theory of how living organisms work chemically and physically.
And sure, any deductive system will never philosophically amount to "100% certainty OMG", because, of course, that's the nature of empiricism and inductive reasoning. It's a matter of probability, and when it comes to repeatedly and obviously observed phenomena which tie in with other consistently observed and repeated phenomena - we cross a threshold where for practical purposes, for purposes of making actions and living as coherent beings who interact with the world as if it is real and the laws of physics aren't about to fall apart at any moment - we implicitly treat them as true, and seeing as we have no countervailing evidence - why would we?
The probability of this being true is at least far higher than the probability of some deductive fantasy - you know like God, which is one of an infinite number of possible to imagine beings - whose putative existence outside of the framework of a universe we can understand, and is thus one of any number of unknown, uncountable possible beings, gives us but an infinitesimal probability of its truth.
Your original post stated you doubted the whole system. That's a rather different statement to suggesting that there are different theories at the frontiers of knowledge.
The thing is, science isn't a random collection of facts you can just pick and choose. It is a system. Part of the process of evidence is that there is a coherent system of interrelated facts that explains, parsimoniously, the observed phenomena. So it isn't just that we have seen it in the microscope - it also dovetails with a whole theory of how living organisms work chemically and physically.
And sure, any deductive system will never philosophically amount to "100% certainty OMG", because, of course, that's the nature of empiricism and inductive reasoning. It's a matter of probability, and when it comes to repeatedly and obviously observed phenomena which tie in with other consistently observed and repeated phenomena - we cross a threshold where for practical purposes, for purposes of making actions and living as coherent beings who interact with the world as if it is real and the laws of physics aren't about to fall apart at any moment - we implicitly treat them as true, and seeing as we have no countervailing evidence - why would we?
The probability of this being true is at least far higher than the probability of some deductive fantasy - you know like God, which is one of an infinite number of possible to imagine beings - whose putative existence outside of the framework of a universe we can understand, and is thus one of any number of unknown, uncountable possible beings, gives us but an infinitesimal probability of its truth.
well why are you arguing if you agree with what I've said?
My number one point in all of this:
1. Don't accept everything as certainty.
My secondary:
2. It's best to 'believe' some things as true because it's for the best, for the time being.
That's all
Original post by louieee
exactly, we can never really know for ourselves. that's what I've been trying to say all along ._.
I've just had a genetics exam today. Biology is awesome and you suck at it because you suck with girls
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
Original post by RoyalBlue7
Well what triggered the Renaissance in Europe was the fall of the Church and the likes. But you're assuming that God exists only for Christianity. I could as well argue that when the people of the Middle East was under one leadership and was religious (900-1300) they made great leaps in scientific understanding of the world.
You can't question science or the scientific method. The scientific method is self-questioning enough.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You can't question science or the scientific method. The scientific method is self-questioning enough.
Posted from TSR Mobile
My example was just that: an example. I'm saying that if we question it, we're more likely to advance (because if we just accept it, just like that, why bother working to anything better?).
And I can question whatever I like, because that's what makes me human
if scientists have the right to question other scientist's theories, then why can't I question something much less specific and targeting? I'm not a genius, but I think I remember learning about Charles Darwin questioning religious theories while /still being religious/. He still had faith in the things he questioned, but he found a better explanation. Why can't I do the same, on a less grand scale?
Original post by Masoudy
I've just had a genetics exam today. Biology is awesome and you suck at it because you suck with girls
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
seeing isn't believing hun. Also read the very first page for my theory on microscopes. And btw, I do accept that theory as true, so you really can't science me any more.
Original post by Masoudy
I've just had a genetics exam today. Biology is awesome and you suck at it because you suck with girls
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
I suck at biology because I suck with girls?
yeah that's proper scientific mate that is, you totally "scienced" me there :0Original post by Masoudy
I've just had a genetics exam today. Biology is awesome and you suck at it because you suck with girls
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
Golgi or Berkeley bodies is true because when you insert a green protein into a cell and tag that protein with a signal known to be in these globular bodies, you would really see a green blob under your microscope at specific location in every cell
--------------------
In more accurate science terms (you don't have to read this if you no science) a green fluorescent protein is tagged in vitro with a signal sequence (a string of amino acids). This signal sequence is known to attach and target proteins from outside the cell and just sucks them into the cell and sucks them again into the Golgi apparatus (or the little coloured circular thing that we rather not call Golgi, naming isn't important).
Magic happens when you do electroporation of the cell (poring or creating holes in its membrane so it can take in your artificially-synthesised protein) in a solution of your green fluorescent protein. Proteins would naturally get into the cell as it is full of holes and you can see it live under a fluorescent microscope that it travels (because of its signal sequence) through the actin from the cytoskeleton then through the microtubules in cytoplasm accompanied by motor proteins till it reaches the Golgi. Thats why Golgi is real and is nothing imaginative.
-----------
you just got scienced
your little science bit there seems like a kid's with a mild understanding of the experiment, using a glossary so as to baffle and impress the OP. didn't work though
and it makes no improvement to your argument because you clearly haven't thought about anything before typing itOriginal post by louieee
your little science bit there seems like a kid's with a mild understanding of the experiment, using a glossary so as to baffle and impress the OP. didn't work though and it makes no improvement to your argument because you clearly haven't thought about anything before typing it
and it makes no improvement to your argument because you clearly haven't thought about anything before typing itbaseless accusation
logic-ed
Original post by Masoudy
baseless accusation
logic-ed
logic-ed
it's not baseless. I've addressed everything you've said multiple times already, hence why I didn't feel the need to reply in detail to you. Also that bit about you're science bit not changing how I think...well, it didn't change how I think. So again, not baseless. See?
Original post by louieee
it's not baseless. I've addressed everything you've said multiple times already, hence why I didn't feel the need to reply in detail to you. Also that bit about you're science bit not changing how I think...well, it didn't change how I think. So again, not baseless. See?
This is called not-baseless accusation: You're a 6 years old kid with issues (quoting from a TSR profile):
" When I grow up I want to be less dependent on other people and just have a secure state of mind, I also plan on being properly loved one day :3"
Original post by louieee
When I was younger, I was pressured into believing in God by others who believe. Now I feel like the same is happening again, just with science this time :| but I do admire biologists because despite it's flaws, it does have practical use (e.g. creating medicine, saving lives). But then again back in the past religion was believed to do those things (pray to the trees, have skin as strong as bark when going to war etc.). I'm just so confused :s
Except belief in God was based entirely on faith whilst science provides a huge range of evidence for its claims that are readily available in scientific journals and publications.
That's how science works; though replicable experimental data.
Medicine works, praying to trees rarely if ever works, surely you can see the difference there. The fact that medicine can save lives is pretty convincing evidence that our understanding of biology is largely correct.
The Golgi Complex's function was determined through tagging of macromolecules and following their passage through the cell. Don't believe it? Well you're free to try and replicate the experiment for yourself to confirm it
The structure of anything from individual proteins to organelles to the leaning tower of Pisa can be determined in extraordinary detail with X Ray Crystallography.
Original post by louieee
look up the beginning of this thread, I've already explained this
Just looked at the first page and don't see the phrase peer review anywhere?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by michaelhaych
Except belief in God was based entirely on faith whilst science provides a huge range of evidence for its claims that are readily available in scientific journals and publications.
That's how science works; though replicable experimental data.
Medicine works, praying to trees rarely if ever works, surely you can see the difference there. The fact that medicine can save lives is pretty convincing evidence that our understanding of biology is largely correct.
The Golgi Complex's function was determined through tagging of macromolecules and following their passage through the cell. Don't believe it? Well you're free to try and replicate the experiment for yourself to confirm it
The structure of anything from individual proteins to organelles to the leaning tower of Pisa can be determined in extraordinary detail with X Ray Crystallography.
That's how science works; though replicable experimental data.
Medicine works, praying to trees rarely if ever works, surely you can see the difference there. The fact that medicine can save lives is pretty convincing evidence that our understanding of biology is largely correct.
The Golgi Complex's function was determined through tagging of macromolecules and following their passage through the cell. Don't believe it? Well you're free to try and replicate the experiment for yourself to confirm it
The structure of anything from individual proteins to organelles to the leaning tower of Pisa can be determined in extraordinary detail with X Ray Crystallography.
I've already explained this, I'm not going to repeat myself
Original post by SerLorasTyrell
ohh sorry was it too implicit for you?
I fully addressed the issue there, I didn't need to include the exact wordingQuick Reply
Related discussions
- left out at school
- I need some advice and help on how I can get high grade GCSEs and various other stuff
- Crush on guy in his 50s?
- Learndirect
- I'm a "Snalien"; Plz Send Help :(
- Spouse
- I feel like an absolute dumbass
- How to cope with the exhaustion of faking a smile
- CIE Biology A Level
- 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀
- reGENT cOLLEGE LONDON
- Is their relationship fake?
- My girlfriend has fake boobs
- Traineeship with London Vesta College SCAM
- How common is Faking bereavement to get a Cw extension
- Create fake result for prank to anyone
- moon landing is fake
- Are Anti-Blue Light Glasses Really Effective?
- What is he hiding?
- bad friend
Latest
Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
GCSE Biology Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 3 days ago
A-level Biology Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 week ago
Need detailed and specific OCR Biology notes before alevel exam.Last reply 2 weeks ago
SNAB biology- Access to end-of-topic tests/summaries 2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
a level biology mitosis questionLast reply 3 weeks ago
Biology surface area to volume rationLast reply 3 weeks ago
aqa biology aslevel calculation question FVCPosted 1 month ago
SNAB biology 2024 scientific articleLast reply 1 month ago
Resources for edexcel a (snab) a level biology?Last reply 1 month ago
Im losing my mind over this and I don't know where I keep going wrongLast reply 1 month ago
Aqa biology a level paper 3 2023Last reply 2 months ago
AQA A Level Biology Paper 1 2018Last reply 3 months ago
how do you do this please explain stepsLast reply 5 months ago
biology math question ratios alevel aqaLast reply 6 months ago
biology aqa alevel proteins question past paperTrending
Last reply 13 hours ago
GCSE Biology Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 3 days ago
A-level Biology Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 week ago
Need detailed and specific OCR Biology notes before alevel exam.Last reply 2 weeks ago
SNAB biology- Access to end-of-topic tests/summaries 2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
a level biology mitosis questionLast reply 3 weeks ago
Biology surface area to volume rationLast reply 3 weeks ago
aqa biology aslevel calculation question FVCPosted 1 month ago
SNAB biology 2024 scientific articleLast reply 1 month ago
Resources for edexcel a (snab) a level biology?Last reply 1 month ago
Im losing my mind over this and I don't know where I keep going wrongLast reply 1 month ago
Aqa biology a level paper 3 2023Last reply 2 months ago
AQA A Level Biology Paper 1 2018Last reply 3 months ago
how do you do this please explain stepsLast reply 5 months ago
biology math question ratios alevel aqaLast reply 6 months ago
biology aqa alevel proteins question past paper
