Intelligent Design questions

[CaliforniaSkin]

In response to above: There are instances of reshuffled genes. Some of which include popular things such as better varieties of grapes, apples, and roses. But those were normal changes within species. (They were still grapes, apples, and roses.) None of these are mutations.

They're not mutations? Let me give you one specific example: Cauliflower (because I happen to know that one off the top of my head). Cauliflower, Brooccoli, Kale, Brussels Sprouts, Kihirabi as well as a number of other food crops are all mutatnst of Wild Cabbage Brassica oleracea oleracea. Cauliflower has what is known as a loss-of-function mutation at two locii. The part of Cauliflower (and broccoli) that we eat is the flower. Compared to other varieties, caulifower and broccoli have much larger and densere inflorescences. (Size and density of inflorescence evidently were the most desiralbe traits selected by the farmers who first developed cauliflower). Among the genes that trigger the developement of flowes is one called CAULIFLOWER (coding for a protein of about 250 amino acids if memory serves). Naturally occuring populations of Aribidopsis have several alleles of the CAULIFLOWER gene that produce subltle phenotypic effects. THe effects of the CAULIFLOWER gene are subtle because the protein produced is redundant with one produced by a similar gene known as APETALA1. This has been shown both in the lab by introducing loss-of-function mutations and in the wild by sequencing DNA. The cauliflower plant that we eat is homozygous for a loss-of-function mutation (just what it sounds like, a mutation which codes for a non-functional protein) at both locii. Incidently the mutation that causes loss of function is a simple substitution mutation. The normal codon is CAG coding for glutamic acid. In the mutation the G is replaced by a T and it codes for a stop codon.

There are, of course, many other examples.

There is one mutation that evolutionists cite as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur. It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen.

How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial?

It's not that simple. Sickle cell is not used as an example of a beneficial mutation, but rather as an example of pleiotropy - how genetic changes can have more than one effect on the phenotype and how the environment can affect changes in the genome. Resistance to malaria helps explain why the trait has stuck around rather than lessen. (It will not disapear because it is a recesive trait) The sickle cell trait occurs because of a single point mutation in the beta subunit of hemoglobin at the 6 position. In sickle cell a valine is substituted for glutamic acid. This single mutation is responsible for all of its effects..

In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?

If it was just a question of having either sickle cell anemia or malaria it wouldn't be much of an advantage. However, it isn't. The key to understanding the situation is understanding heterozygosity. If someone has one gene for hemoglobin A and one gene for hemoglobin S they get the best of both worlds. The gain protection from malaria, but not sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia requires homozygosity for the gene, that is two sickle cell alleles (both producing hemoglobin S).

And here is where you really get evolution wrong.

Here are six interesting thoughts about evolution.

1 - Evolution Always Operates Upward, Not Downward - In other words, evolution always has positive effects. Yet, because it is supposedly totally random, half its effects would have to be negative

This is an absolutely incorrect, though common, view of evolution. First of all far more than half of mutation are deleterious. The vast majority (excluding silent mutations) are slightly deleterious.

The bigger problem with that statement is that evolution (and we are really talking about selection here) is not forward looking. In fact, back mutations occur frequently. On the microscopic level look at the post above where I referenced HIV treatments. On the macroscopic level, snakes evolved (as seen in the fossil record) to lose their limbs. Many flightless birds lost their ability to fly.

However, if you are saying that evolution selects for fitness, well then yes, of course it does. Mutations often have negative effects. The whole concept of evolution is that those will be selected against.

2 - Evolution Operates Irreversibly - But scientists well-know that actions in nature can reverse and go in either direction

No molecular biologist would ever claim this. We see back-mutations all the time in nature. Depending on the environmental conditions these may be selected for. I discussed one case in detail above when I talked about HIV evolving resistence to AZT (and going back in absence of the drug). Selection operates independtly on each generation.

One study that shows this is one that was done on the ground finch population on Daphne minor, a very small island in the Galapagos. It was shown that succesive generations of finches had narrower beaks. The ground finches feed on seeds and a narrower beak helps to crack the seeds. In 1977, however, there was a drought. The population dropped sharply. The survivors actually had deeper beaks. Why? Well it turns out that beak depth is associated with body size. And larger bodied birds were better able to survive the drought. In the generations after the drought ended the beak size began to drop again.

3 - Evolution Operates Only from Smaller to Bigger - This is another fantasy, which does not agree with nature

Again, not at all true. Selection can favor larger animals, or smaller ones, it depends on the environment. The finch study I mentioned above shows selection going both ways depending on environmental conditions.

4 - Evolution Operates from Less Complex to More Complex - Random actions tear down and destroy at least as often as they build

Again, wrong. Selection selects for fitness, not complexity. If a more complex organisms is more fit (fitness is defined as reproductive success) then that is selected for. Less complexity can also be selected. Again, snakes losing their legs.

And again, evolution is not random. Mutations are random.

5 - Evolution Operates from Less Perfect to More Perfect - How can random chance ever operate solely toward greater perfectness?

No evolutionary scientist, molecular biologist or geneticist talks about perfection. Evolution operates, in each generation, from less fit to more fit. Perfection doesn't enter into the equation.

6 - Evolution Is Not Repeatable - According to the theory, the same change could never happen twice. Evolution requires that changes be made which make brand new species that have never existed before.

I have no idea where you got this one. In fact similar mutations happen all the time. That is often one way to test for mutation rates. The theory actually requires that the same change could happen and often does. Speciation is a separate, and more complex issue. Part of the problem is that there is no single definition of species. Determining at what point speciation happens is difficult but doesn't affect the theory in the slightest. (and we have created several species through artificial selection. Dogs, of course, are one example as are most of our staple crops. The corn you eat today is a different species than the wild maize that was found in this country 400 years ago).

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

There are a number of problems with this statement. First of all his math is wrong. The number is actually closer to 1x10 exp 37 because the nature of the genetic code. Each nucleotide can be one of 4 bases. But translation (RNA - protein the important step in determining functionality) is based on codons. Each codon can code for one of 20 amino acids or a stop codon. So that lowers his calculation by about 13 orders of magnitude (he's off by a factor of more than 40 quadrillion). However, it is still an awfully huge number, I'm just pointing out the lack of understanding that led to the number. The reality is that most proteins are MUCH bigger than that.

The key factor here is again that it is not happening by chance. The analogy that is often used by ID folks is the one of a bunch of monkeys randomly typing out Hamlet. If you had 1000 monkeys typing away at 1000 typewriters you'd never get Hamlet. True, but the analogy is flawed. The proper analogy to Evolution is if you stopped all the monkeys after one letter. You then checked which ones had typed an S and let them type on. You also erased every other monkey's work and put an S on their paper. (Selection at work, only an S lets us get to Hamlet).

The key is that the protein didn't come about as a random mutation from nothing to an fully evolved, functional protein. It is a gradual process.

[/i]"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

"It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

We have produced a number of species through artificial selection. Many, many plant species are human engineered. Most of our staple crops and, indeed, many of our fruit crops. Our dometicated animals are different species than their forebears. Or did you think there was a wild cow out there?

I think one of the big problems the oponents of evolution have is that they don't understand the theory. There seems to be an enormous misconception about what it says. And they are often oposed to it on theological grounds before learning what it is. I'm not saying that you are one of those people. But before you attack the theory I think you should try and learn a little more about it.

[ashburnskinsfan]

California ... Pinstripe is just cutting and pasting from a Creationist website. He doesn't understand the arguments we're making, nor indeed the false ones he's copying.

[BlueTalon]

I wonder if BT is going to come back to this thread :laugh:

I have a job. I was at work.

Liberty, first, if you want people to take you seriously, don't use Wikipedia as a source to rely on. Anyone can edit anything in there. Find other sources.

Second, your statement that "we can test whether organic compounds can spontaneosly form under the environment of the Earth at that time" is a statement of faith, and it speaks to an event that is neither testable nor repeatable -- the beginning of life.

There is no such thing as a simple cell. Every cell has to be able to:

-take in energy from outside itself

-digest of matabolize that energy

-excrete waste

-maintain it's internal pressure

-reproduce itself (that is, if that first cell hopes to leave a legacy)

among many other things. (It has been well over a decade since I studied biology, but I remember there were like 26 functions that every cell has to accomplish)

So, if you believe in evolution (key word being believe), you have to believe that the atmosphere and/or oceans stir up the right compounds in just the right quantities in just the right places at just the right time to be zapped by lighning or something and it holds together long enough for a membrane to form and proteins to form and RNA and DNA to form and spontaneously reproduce and find food and not get killed long enough to reproduce again and not die in its own waste or in the harsh environment and find more food. THAT's the belief your supposed test for possible spontaneous organic compounds hopes to support.

You have to believe that that cell, without any mechanism for doing so, morphed/mutated into different types of cell, that the cell made the jump from single-cell life to multi-cell life without any mechanism, that those multi-celled life forms developed specialized cells without any mechanism, that invertebrates grew a spine without any mechanism (I wish come politicians would do that) for doing so. You have to believe that the overwhelming majority of mutations are beneficial, since the fossil record doesn't record a whole bunch of false starts, it records a bunch of fully formed life forms.

You have to believe that when a beneficial mutation happens, that mutation is not only present in the body of the life form but also encoded in its reproductive system, that the mutated organism can then find something to reproduce with (presumably a mrs. mutation that has the same mutation? and which also will have the same mutation not only present in the body but also encoded in its reproductive system? how likely is that?), that the mutation will get passed on, that the mutated child will find a mate somewhere to pass on this beneficial mutation. That means the genetic mutation needs to be 100% accurate, and that 100% accurate leap would have to have happened for every single animal (and plant) on the planet!

Those are things that cannot be tested. You say ID can't be tested? I say the same thing about evolution.

[Zguy28]

California ... Pinstripe is just cutting and pasting from a Creationist website. He doesn't understand the arguments we're making, nor indeed the false ones he's copying.

Who are you to say something is false? We live in the age of enlightenment, or so I've been told by the relativists I've met. Everything is subject to relativism, their is no absolute truth. The word "wrong" or "false" is not PC. Get with the times.:rant:

[BlueTalon]

The key factor here is again that it is not happening by chance. The analogy that is often used by ID folks is the one of a bunch of monkeys randomly typing out Hamlet. If you had 1000 monkeys typing away at 1000 typewriters you'd never get Hamlet. True, but the analogy is flawed. The proper analogy to Evolution is if you stopped all the monkeys after one letter. You then checked which ones had typed an S and let them type on. You also erased every other monkey's work and put an S on their paper. (Selection at work, only an S lets us get to Hamlet).

This reminds me of something hilarious that happened when someone actually did put monkeys in front of keyboards to see that would happen. There were a few "oiunwgopeisdgfr"s and "jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj"s, but mostly they did things like hit each other with the keyboards, poop on the keyboards, and ignore the keyboards. (I wish I could remember where I heard that -- it was a few years ago...)

[Zguy28]

I wonder what will happen if someday humanoid life is discovered on another planet with similar DNA helixes and such like in Star Trek? What will everyone think of ID then? Or Evolution?

Wasn't there an episode of Star Trek TNG that dealt with this, where all of the planets in the galaxy were seeded with primordial genes or something and we were all related to the Klingons and Romulans?

[smsmith40]

BlueTalon - Nice to see you back. Could you give some answers to the questians I asked in response to your post a couple of pages ago? Thanks

[Prosperity]

sorry BT, you are a day late and a dollar short. I have lost interest in this thread, but I will atleast address some of your points in the interest of being polite.

I have a job. I was at work.

Liberty, first, if you want people to take you seriously, don't use Wikipedia as a source to rely on. Anyone can edit anything in there. Find other sources.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

It is remarkably accurate for many subjects. If you have any specific quarrels with a fact let me know.

But hey I am sure your creationist websites and books are just as accurate if not more!

Second, your statement that "we can test whether organic compounds can spontaneosly form under the environment of the Earth at that time" is a statement of faith, and it speaks to an event that is neither testable nor repeatable -- the beginning of life.

we can test it based on hypotheses of the conditions of the earth at that time, is it perfect? No, is it science? Yes.

There is no such thing as a simple cell. Every cell has to be able to:

-take in energy from outside itself

-digest of matabolize that energy

-excrete waste

-maintain it's internal pressure

-reproduce itself (that is, if that first cell hopes to leave a legacy)

among many other things. (It has been well over a decade since I studied biology, but I remember there were like 26 functions that every cell has to accomplish)

that's fine

So, if you believe in evolution (key word being believe), you have to believe that the atmosphere and/or oceans stir up the right compounds in just the right quantities in just the right places at just the right time to be zapped by lighning or something and it holds together long enough for a membrane to form and proteins to form and RNA and DNA to form and spontaneously reproduce and find food and not get killed long enough to reproduce again and not die in its own waste or in the harsh environment and find more food. THAT's the belief your supposed test for possible spontaneous organic compounds hopes to support.

its a large world over billions of years, experiments have shown it to be plausible but all you can respond with is burrrrr too complicated and "unlikely" for me.

You have to believe that that cell, without any mechanism for doing so, morphed/mutated into different types of cell, that the cell made the jump from single-cell life to multi-cell life without any mechanism, that those multi-celled life forms developed specialized cells without any mechanism, that invertebrates grew a spine without any mechanism (I wish come politicians would do that) for doing so. You have to believe that the overwhelming majority of mutations are beneficial, since the fossil record doesn't record a whole bunch of false starts, it records a bunch of fully formed life forms.

There is a mechanism, its called Evolution through natural selection. You may also want to do some research on the process of DNA replication.

You have to believe that when a beneficial mutation happens, that mutation is not only present in the body of the life form but also encoded in its reproductive system, that the mutated organism can then find something to reproduce with (presumably a mrs. mutation that has the same mutation? and which also will have the same mutation not only present in the body but also encoded in its reproductive system? how likely is that?), that the mutation will get passed on, that the mutated child will find a mate somewhere to pass on this beneficial mutation. That means the genetic mutation needs to be 100% accurate, and that 100% accurate leap would have to have happened for every single animal (and plant) on the planet!

it is coded in the DNA, you need to do more research on the reproductive systems of organisms. The vast majority of organisms don't even need a "mrs." to reproduce.

Those are things that cannot be tested. You say ID can't be tested? I say the same thing about evolution.

What can not be tested? Most of your problems are that this is too unlikely, and too complicated.

You may also want to read the whole thread too, Californiaskin for example has a lot of good posts in this thread, along with AtB.

One last thing, your post is indicative of the ID movement as a whole, not so much trying to scientifically back ID as it is an attempt to bring evolution down to ID's level.

[smsmith40]

Wrong thread

[CaliforniaSkin]

Rather than respond to some of the previous post individually, I think it might help if someone actually spelled out what the theory of natural selection actually says. The theory of selection has four postulates.

1) There is variation within among individuals even within a species

This is so obvious as to need no other comments.

2) Some of the variation is heritable.

This is also pretty obvious but many studies have backed it up starting with Mendel. I will also reference the Galapagos finch study i mentioned earlier. Because the researchers were working on a small island with a discrete population they were able to identify every bird and correlate all offspring to their parents. They showed, as have many others, that variation is heritable.

3) In every generation, some individuals are more successsful at surviving and reproducing than others

Again this is pretty much impossible to deny. However, it has been backed up by many studies. The Galapagos finch study found that over 80% of finches died off in the drought year of 1977. Obviously only the survivors could reproduce. Furthermore the study found that almost 90% of individuals die before they can breed under normal conditions.

4) The survival and reproduction of individuals is not random; they are tied to the variation among individuals. The individuals with the most favorable variations, i.e. the ones best able to survive and reproduce, are naturall selected.

Here is where those attacking natural selection must make their case. Unfortunately for them, this is also backed up by an immense amount of research (and no contrary research). The finch study, for example, showed that survival through the drought was directly related to body size.

What I just laid out above is the theory of natural selection. And each postulate seems pretty unassailable. So why the debate? Well there is more to evolution than just natural selection of course. And I think people still misundestand the theory so let me expand upon it a little more.

Natural selection acts on individuals, but its consequences occur in populations

To state this another way, the act of cracking seeds did not make finch beaks larger or their bodies larger. The average beak depth and body size in the finch population increased because more smaller finches died before they could reproduce than large ones.

Natural selection is not forward looking

This is a very importan one. Each generation is a product of selection by the environmental conditions that prevailed in the preceeding generation. There is a common misconception that organisms can be adapted to future conditions, or that selection can look ahead and anticipate environmental changes during future generations. This is impossible.

New traits can evolve even though selection acts on existing traits.

Selection can select only from the variations that already exist in a population. Selection cannot, to continue the finch example, instantly create a new, optimal beak for cracking seeds. It can only select from the range of beaks already present in the population.

However, over time new trats can evolve. This seems initially paradoxical given that selection acts only on existing traits. Nevertheless, the evolution of new traits is possible for two reasons. First, during reproduction in all species mutations produce new alleles. This has been shown conclusively through DNA sequencing. Second, during reproduction in sexual species, meiosis and fertilization recombine existing alleles to creat new genotypes. Mutation and recombination produce new suites of tratis for selection to act upon.

Natural selection is nonrandom, but it is not progressive

Evolutions by natural selection is often characterized by its oponents as a random or chance process, but nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution by natural selection is nonranom because it increases adaptation to the environment. However, it is completely free of intent. Darwin actually came to regret coining the phrase "naturally selected" because people thought the word implied a conscious act or choice by some entity.

Although evolution has tended to increase complexity (though it doesn't always) it is not progressive in the sense of leading toward some perdetermined goal. Evolution only makes organisms "better" in the sense of increasing their adaptation to their environments. There is no inexorable trend towards more advanced forms of life. Contemporary tape worms have no digestive system are are actually simpler than their ancestors. The earliest birds in the fossil record had teeth.

So there is the theory of natural selection. If you have problems with it, attack the actual theory. If not, consider that you might not be opposed to the theory when you've truly examined it.

[HOF44]

Rather than respond to some of the previous post individually, I think it might help if someone actually spelled out what the theory of natural selection actually says. The theory of selection has four postulates.

This was a great post CS, I am not sure how someone would argue it. However I'm sure we are about to see how they would.

[PokerPacker]

I wonder what will happen if someday humanoid life is discovered on another planet with similar DNA helixes and such like in Star Trek? What will everyone think of ID then? Or Evolution?

Wasn't there an episode of Star Trek TNG that dealt with this, where all of the planets in the galaxy were seeded with primordial genes or something and we were all related to the Klingons and Romulans?

and cardassians

[Prosperity]

I wonder what will happen if someday humanoid life is discovered on another planet with similar DNA helixes and such like in Star Trek? What will everyone think of ID then? Or Evolution?

Wasn't there an episode of Star Trek TNG that dealt with this, where all of the planets in the galaxy were seeded with primordial genes or something and we were all related to the Klingons and Romulans?

ID will still be irrelevant, evolution will be looked at again (concerning humans) but concurrent evolution is not out of the question.

[Zguy28]

ID will still be irrelevant, evolution will be looked at again (concerning humans) but concurrent evolution is not out of the question.

EDIT: Nevermind, you won't listen anyway.

[SnyderShrugged]

ID will still be irrelevant, evolution will be looked at again (concerning humans) but concurrent evolution is not out of the question.

Wouldnt it actually take away from evolutionary theory and add more basis for ID?

(Liberty was responding to a question asked about finding human DNA in another galaxy or planet)

[Prosperity]

Wouldnt it actually take away from evolutionary theory and add more basis for ID?

(Liberty was responding to a question asked about finding human DNA in another galaxy or planet)

I don't see how ID could possibly be affected, ID deals with the origin of all life, not just human and not even just life but the whole universe (If we are talking about what ID really is, the teleological argument for God). But yeah in my opinion it would take away from the theory of evolution. (that should be obvious right?)

It seems silly talking about this though, we can worry about that when it happens, we have enough problems right now.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't see how ID could possibly be affected, ID deals with the origin of all life, not just human and not even just life but the whole universe (If we are talking about what ID really is, the teleological argument for God). But yeah in my opinion it would take away from the theory of evolution.

It seems silly talking about this though, we can worry about that when it happens, we have enough problems right now.

In all seriousness though, can you imagine the poopstrom that would result in both the scientific and theologic worlds if human dNA was found in another solar system??

I think that the ID camp would benefit more only because evolution would take such a hit. It would be very easy to debate at that point by stating

"See? Universal life must have been by design?"

[Crazyhorse1]

I wish to elucidate this matter in the most emphatic terms for the sake of clarity.

1) Science is testing by the scientific method and reaching a finding.

2) If the result shows that somethings always results from certain conditions the result is called a "law."

3) If the result shows how something happens it is called a "theory."

To be scientific, those believing in intelligent design would have to bring the intelligent designer into the lab and he would have to repeatedly design the universe while being observed. Then, intelligent design would be called a "law."

If the means by which the intelligent designer were then discovered and the scientists would be able to explain it or demonstate it how it was done, then intelligent design would be a "theory."

Note: In science, "Law" and "Theory" have the same value. They are the highest ranks to which a scientific hypothesis (guess) can aspire.

When Intelligent Design supporters challenge scientists with statements such as, "Evolution is only a theory." or "Both Intelligent Design and Science are trying to get at the truth," they display their misunderstanding of the difference between philosophy and science. Science is primarily a tool. No one has ever been able to discover how to use it to examine God. Science is empirical. It's doesn't allow deductive leaps or imagination or unproven elements; it insists on uncontested physical data. [

[HOF44]

Note: In science, "Law" and "Theory" have the same value. They are the highest ranks to which a scientific hypothesis (guess) can aspire.

Your joking right?

[skinfan133]

Note: In science, "Law" and "Theory" have the same value. They are the highest ranks to which a scientific hypothesis (guess) can aspire.

who teaches kids these things???? they need to be re-educated becuase that is so false its not even funny

[Prosperity]

who teaches kids these things???? they need to be re-educated becuase that is so false its not even funny

What exactly is so wrong about the statement?

There is no such thing as an unbreakable law in science. Science proves nothing with certainty because it relies on inferences and not deductions (though deductions are part of putting together a theory and linking different theories ).

Nothing is 100%

"Law" is just a word used to describe a theory that is believed to be very strong.

[skinfan133]

What exactly is so wrong about the statement?

There is no such thing as an unbreakable law in science. Science proves nothing with certainty because it relies on inferences and not deductions (though deductions are part of putting together a theory and linking different theories ).

Nothing is 100%

"Law" is just a word used to describe a theory that is believed to be very strong.

even so in science both terms are used independently of each other and should be constituted as much for the sake of argument

[DjTj]

Note: In science, "Law" and "Theory" have the same value. They are the highest ranks to which a scientific hypothesis (guess) can aspire.

Your joking right?

who teaches kids these things???? they need to be re-educated becuase that is so false its not even funny

I'm actually pretty sure Crazyhorse is right on this point.

Things in science are named either "law" or "theory" based on whatever the author happenned to call them at the time. Newton created Laws of Motion and a Universal Law of Gravitation, but we actually now know that those laws are wrong - Einstein generalized Newton's laws with his Theory of Relativity. Newton called his ideas "laws" while Einstein called his ideas "theories." As far as we know now, Newton was wrong, and Einstein is at least more right ... but we still call them Newton's laws and Einstein's theory.

There are also things called laws which aren't really laws or theories, like Moore's Law, which states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles about every two years. That's really more of an observation.

I think when it really comes down to it, the words "law" and "theory" aren't really scientific words at all. In math, there's really only three kinds of ideas:

(1) axioms or postulates, which are assumed to be true.

(2) theorems or corollaries, which are proven to be true.

(3) hypotheses or conjectures, which are unproven.

Everything in science is a hypothesis or a conjecture, because it's impossible to prove anything in the real world with 100% certainty. Things that scientists are pretty sure about get fancy names like "law" or "theory" but that doesn't really change their status - they are still hypotheses or conjectures at least in the eyes of mathematicians. So as far as I can tell, Crazyhorse is right that the words "law" and "theory" are interchangeable and shouldn't necessarily tell you anything about their validity.

[Prosperity]

even so in science both terms are used independently of each other and should be constituted as much for the sake of argument

Well they aren't really independent because every "law" is a theory. Theories that are supported by a wealth of evidence and are pretty much accepted everywhere are called laws, but that is a very subjective classification.

I don't like arguing over semantics, but I think it is ok to refer to some theories as laws as long we know they aren't really laws even though in practicality they might as well be. Just thought crazyhorse was getting bashed without due cause for that particular point.

[skinfan133]

Well they aren't really independent because every "law" is a theory. Theories that are supported by a wealth of evidence and are pretty much accepted everywhere are called laws, but that is a very subjective classification.

I don't like arguing over semantics, but I think it is ok to refer to some theories as laws as long we know they aren't really laws even though in practicality they might as well be. Just thought crazyhorse was getting bashed without due cause for that particular point.

noted, but even if laws are theories, all theories are not laws;)