 |
 |
Dear Ray When Darwin first started talking about Evolution, it sounded very rational that life evolved from the simple cell which was thought to be a jelly like mass of protoplasm with a nucleus. I remember drawing those in school. Now we know there is no such thing as a simple cell, it is a single cell. In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the Rockerfeller Institute in NY, discovered it was an amazingly intricate system of incredibly fine tubes and chain of minute bags that totally permeate the entire cell. To summary your 10 pages of the "simple cell" It has structural design, energy generators, invasion guards , transport systems, food factories, waste disposal systems, protective barriers, communication links within and without the cell city that it is. Just the "skin" of the cell is amazing. It controls the entry and exit of everything for the cell, almost as if it had a chemical sense of taste as it grabs or rejects the needed nutrients into the cell by forming a little "finger" ! that reaches out and pulls the needed nutrient inside. Then there is the DNA and RNA! Science hasn't a clue how this could have just happened, but they don't say that in the schools or in science books, or if they do it is very low keyed. It couldn't have just happened. There was a quote I read once, that I can't find when I need it, that said, "Evolution expects us to believe the unbelievable, but to do otherwise is to believe in a Creator and that is unacceptable." Paula rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: KF thank you and glad you clarified that many testers needed to get same result from experiment. I googled "Cell" and got 10 pages and had hard time getting beyond basic unit of life. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "KF Etzold" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:55 AM Subject: The Scientific Method and PD (with emphasis on the scientific method) > Rick posted some references on the scientific method; here is a brief > outline of the usual proceedure followed in research with some coments on > PD and intelligent design. As far as cells are concerned I had a similar > question, which I posed to a biologist. The result is that I now have a > 1000 page, ten pound tome called "The cell". > > K. F. > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > > Ray: > Please won't someone on the List with a science background explain to all > what the scientific method is? Also, what actually is a cell? > > Paula Nixon: > Parkinson's research, what if they are going down the wrong alley as the > pdrecovery.org thinks? They finance their own research and are getting > Recoveries. > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > OK; > I am a scientist, and the work I do uses the scientific method. To solve a > problem, or to find an answer to a question the first thing one needs to > do > is to create a hypothesis. This is a construct, based on previous, > established and verified results of a scientific inquiry. Fundamentally, > one poses a question and then tries to answer it by experiments or > observation. Unfortunately in many cases there is some uncertainty > attached > to the answer and so the experiment or observation has to repeated many > times and by different observers. After getting the same, compatible > results over and over again the hypothesis is accepted as valid. In > general > it not sufficient for one experiment to verify the hypothesis. Multiple > verifications are needed under different circumstances (such as changing > the ambient temperature, whether light is present etc.). There is the > question of whether a natural law can be true or not. Strictly speaking > this is only partially a valid question, because in science there is no > such thing as absolute truth, only multiple verification. > > One of the pillars of research is the ability to project forward: using a > combination of laws we can predict the future behavior of a new system. If > this reliably happens then the constituent laws are generally accepted as > "true". Notice that there is no definite, absolute way to establish > validity. An example of the validity of a physical law is Newton's law of > acceleration, F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration). Is there a way > to establish the truth of this law? The answer is no, BUT does it describe > the motion of bodies? The answer here is yes. It would not be possible to > fly the Space shuttle, if it were not for the "truth" of this law and its > predictions. It is this sequence that fails in "intelligent design". The > hypothesis is that living things were designed by God. But the scientific > requirement of verifiability is missing. So intelligent design is an > article of faith, the key element of religion. > > But what about laws which are changed, or worse, become invalid. The > second > instance would be due to an incomplete hypothesis i.e. not all factors > were > taken into account. Thus the hypothesis is satisfied but was not > sufficiently broad. An example is the notion that the sun revolves around > the earth. This was based on incomplete observations (and religious > fervor). The first case (change) is a little more subtle. Newton's laws > hold in ordinary terrestrial situations but then Michelson and Einstein > came along and argued that the laws need to extended for very high speeds. > This is the case for Special Relativity > which must be invoked for objects moving with speeds comparable to the > speed of light. At ordinary speeds Newton's laws are still fine but > corrections are necessary at higher speeds. So one cannot argue that these > laws became invalid but rather that they had to be extended. > > In the discussion of research "going down the wrong path", one has to > recognize that many problems are multifaceted and all paths need to be > examined. Usually scientists have a hunch or preference for the most > likely > hypothesis. Those will be explored first. But the others must still be > investigated and either eliminated (wrong path) or verified (right path). > The key idea is that there really is no "wrong path", assuming that the > "wrong path" is not some crackpot idea which also happens unfortunately > but > is usually easy to spot. If an incompatibility arises the hypotheses > (plural) must be modified. > > There is another subtlety. In physics it generally possible to get ones > arms around a problem and have an accurate hypothesis. This is not the > case > in medicine or sociology, where the hypothesis is almost always > incomplete. > This complicates the design of an experiment and the interpretation of the > outcome. > > All of us are familiar with the variability of PD symptoms. Thus the > correlation of a symptom or set of symptoms in PD with a specific Brain > defect is very difficult. It is made even more difficult by the appearance > of confounding symptoms, often due to aging, but unrelated to PD. On > autopsy the situation is usually clarified, but the "experimental" space > is > confined when the PWP is alive. > > > K. F. Etzold > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center > Yorktown Heights NY 10598 > 914 - 945 - 3816 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn