Laws of genetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
Are there laws of genetics?

If so, how many?

How did the develop?

What came first amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, and so forth?

Add any questions and answers because I do not even know enough to ask the better or best questions.

THANKS!!!
 
Of course there are laws of genetics! I think it’s something that is WAY too complicated to simplify like that though. Even with the most basic Mendelian color genetics there is just so much it’s unbelieveable. Genetics (mainly sheep) is a hobby of mine…maybe after finals this week I can look into a simplified answer to your questions.

I am not a geneticist however. Maybe others would like to chime in.
 
I think genetics is based on probability because the natural laws of genetics are way too complicated. So, if you had two parents, you wouldn’t really be able to tell what the children would look like, but only give probabilities. Some genetic factors are more predominant than others, such as Brown Eyes and Hair being a more dominant trait. Granted, we have the technology to be able to give what characteristics we want to someone or something, such as is done with animals and plants, but doing such things with humans is considered immoral , or unethical in the scientific world.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Are there laws of genetics?

If so, how many?

How did the develop?
Click to expand...
There are. but these laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. So they would develop through observation and research.
Jim_Baur said:
What came first amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, and so forth?
Click to expand...
RNA is thought to have come before DNA. It’s been found that some of the molecules that form RNA can form under natural conditions.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
There are. but these laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. So they would develop through observation and research.

RNA is thought to have come before DNA. It’s been found that some of the molecules that form RNA can form under natural conditions.
Click to expand...
Source please?

Ed
 
“…these laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.”

I just love this principle.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Are there laws of genetics?

If so, how many?

How did the develop?

What came first amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, and so forth?

Add any questions and answers because I do not even know enough to ask the better or best questions.

THANKS!!!
Click to expand...
Genetics is very complicated. Some traits are carried through due to probability, genetic drift, and/or natural selection…then there’s the whole influence of epigenetics.

When you talk about laws of genetics…what do you mean, like Mendelian? The Mendelian laws are the only ones I’m aware of. I’m not so sure that there really are definite “laws” (aside from Mendelian) regarding genetics, but there are many hypotheses and theories.
 
I understand that there are only two laws, Mendelian laws

I understand that there are many rules.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge.

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
I understand that there are only two laws, Mendelian laws

I understand that there are many rules.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge.

THANKS!
Click to expand...
Oh no need to apologize! If you understand the Mendelian laws, you have more knowledge on the subject than most people. 🙂

I was just curious as to what you were referring to? Do you have any more questions or topics you wish to discuss? I love talking about Biology! 😉
 
Yes, I do have more questions, but not yet.

I am out of time and energy.
 
Marie1234 said:
Oh no need to apologize! If you understand the Mendelian laws, you have more knowledge on the subject than most people. 🙂

I was just curious as to what you were referring to? Do you have any more questions or topics you wish to discuss? I love talking about Biology! 😉
Click to expand...
Not sure if this would be right. But it seems to me that genetics, a particular branch of biology and anthropology, uses the Inductive (scientific) Method of observation in order to obtain evidence. Philosophy or one’s personal preferences would dictate where one looks for evidence. This would lead to both a variety of evidence and a variety of methods.

That being the case, would the conclusion be that many, not all, endeavors in science would lead to probable laws rather than absolute laws?
 
grannymh said:
Not sure if this would be right. But it seems to me that genetics, a particular branch of biology and anthropology, uses the Inductive (scientific) Method of observation in order to obtain evidence. Philosophy or one’s personal preferences would dictate where one looks for evidence. This would lead to both a variety of evidence and a variety of methods.

That being the case, would the conclusion be that many, not all, endeavors in science would lead to probable laws rather than absolute laws?
Click to expand...
There really is no such thing as an “absolute law” or “probable law” in science. No matter how certain scientists are that something is to be true, there is always a possibility that they are wrong. Even the law of gravity.

In science, the rankings of accuracy of describing a natural phenomenon are: hypothesis, theory, and then law.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Click to expand...
A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Click to expand...
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Click to expand...
When discussing genetics, I am not referring to any anthropological or philosophical aspects (not really sure how it relates to philosophy?). I’m referring purely from a biological standpoint. Mendel’s findings on genetics are considered laws of science.
 
Maria

In your judgment, could life have developed “unguided”?

When it is attempted in our labs there are always intellect people working with the basic material.

THANKS
 
Jim_Baur said:
Maria

In your judgment, could life have developed “unguided”?

When it is attempted in our labs there are always intellect people working with the basic material.

THANKS
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

I’m not exactly sure what you are asking. Do you mean could life have formed from basic elements without the help of God? Absolutely not.

Why?

Lets take , for instance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (one of MANY reasons why there has to have been a Creator).

There is no way order can come from chaos, especially since natural law dictates that there is a natural state that everything breaks down to on its own. There has to be some outside source (God) that keeps building it up.

Order cannot come, by chance, from chaos. That’s why I’m so baffled when people say it could have been possible that life came by chance. Nope. Not according to nature or scientific laws. There has to have been a Creator.
 
Maria (Clairvoyant)

Clairvoyant, since you read my mind, yes. I was trying to ask that.

You are a saint.

THANKS!!!

I understand that biology has not yet came up with the how of matter without life developing life. Is that accurate?

To what degree have the figured out the ultimate Chicken and Egg questions? That is, what came first the parts of DNA or DNA?

What is the position of the manner in which things reproduced before DNA?

One last elementary question: is postulate before hypothesis?
 
Marie1234 said:
Lets take , for instance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (one of MANY reasons why there has to have been a Creator).

There is no way order can come from chaos, especially since natural law dictates that there is a natural state that everything breaks down to on its own. There has to be some outside source (God) that keeps building it up.

Order cannot come, by chance, from chaos. That’s why I’m so baffled when people say it could have been possible that life came by chance. Nope. Not according to nature or scientific laws. There has to have been a Creator.
Click to expand...
One of the common creationist pieces of misinformation is this misunderstanding of the Second Law.

Go into your kitchen and put some oil and water into a glass. Mix then thoroughly so they are chaotically mixed up. That is chaos. Now leave the glass undisturbed overnight. The oil and water will separate naturally so they are no longer chaotically mixed but re-ordered in two separate layers, the oil on top of the water. That is order. Order has naturally emerged from chaos. You may not be able to unstir the milk from your coffee, but you can unstir the oil from your water. You are being fed grossly incomplete information bout the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here is another piece from a creationist source. It is an absolute classic of the genre:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Scientists certainly know about it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discover for themselves what the creationist here is talking about.

Notice also that the piece, correctly, does not talk about “chaos” or “disorder”, but entropy. Unless you know how to calculate entropy, you are not going to have a correct understanding of the 2LoT.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top