Page 13 of 20 [ 306 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 20  Next

mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

27 Aug 2017, 2:28 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
They think biology (evolution) is possibly not deterministic.

Evolution relies heavily on randomness as I've already said, so how does this in any way undermine Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection?


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

27 Aug 2017, 2:36 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Meistersinger wrote:
Ya know, what's the point of this topic? It has wandered so far off topic it's it funny. Both sides have dug in to their opinions, and they're likely not to change.

After calling this discussion for the p!ssing match it has devolved to, I'm just going to back out, and ignore this topic.


That's just it. Nobody is digging their heels in on the original topic because the original topic was abandoned long ago.

LNH kinda hijacked the thread, and took into a different debate. From "Creation vs evolution" to....

Well LNH is saying one thing (which may, or may not, have anything to do with "evolution vs creation"), and everyone else is trying figure out just WTF she is talking about. :lol:

The topic is about deterministic evolution.

I posted a video of "quantum biology" professors that explicitly say what you science teach taught you about biological systems is wrong; biology appears to be probabilistic, not deterministic.

It's pretty clear.


Wrong. That was never the subject of this thread.

The video challenges the "determinism" in heredity generation to generation. Not about evolution (gradual change over time over the eons).

No one on this thread (nor anyone anywhere ASFAIK) says "evolution is deterministic".



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Aug 2017, 2:43 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
They think biology (evolution) is possibly not deterministic.

Evolution relies heavily on randomness as I've already said, so how does this in any way undermine Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection?

Darwin theorizes evolution is cause and effect (determinism).

These professors suggest that biology may not happen not based on cause, but rather, based on some unknown probability factor/function.

In quantum, we have the "wave function" to explain the apparent non-deterministic behavior of matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

We don't know.

However, anyone promoting deterministic evolution should at least be humble about its truthfulness.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Aug 2017, 2:49 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Meistersinger wrote:
Ya know, what's the point of this topic? It has wandered so far off topic it's it funny. Both sides have dug in to their opinions, and they're likely not to change.

After calling this discussion for the p!ssing match it has devolved to, I'm just going to back out, and ignore this topic.


That's just it. Nobody is digging their heels in on the original topic because the original topic was abandoned long ago.

LNH kinda hijacked the thread, and took into a different debate. From "Creation vs evolution" to....

Well LNH is saying one thing (which may, or may not, have anything to do with "evolution vs creation"), and everyone else is trying figure out just WTF she is talking about. :lol:

The topic is about deterministic evolution.

I posted a video of "quantum biology" professors that explicitly say what you science teach taught you about biological systems is wrong; biology appears to be probabilistic, not deterministic.

It's pretty clear.


Wrong. That was never the subject of this thread.

The video challenges the "determinism" in heredity generation to generation. Not about evolution (gradual change over time over the eons).

No one on this thread (nor anyone anywhere ASFAIK) says "evolution is deterministic".

Darwinism tells us straight up that causality is what's happening.

He just made that up.

That's why in the video, the professor says, "... it's not so understood, as your science teacher led you to believe".

It might be more complicated.

It might not be casualty, but non-casual, randomness.

Thus, the human DNA might of randomlly appeared without the evolutionary chain.

Because of non-casualty.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,743
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Aug 2017, 2:56 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Meistersinger wrote:
Ya know, what's the point of this topic? It has wandered so far off topic it's it funny. Both sides have dug in to their opinions, and they're likely not to change.

After calling this discussion for the p!ssing match it has devolved to, I'm just going to back out, and ignore this topic.


That's just it. Nobody is digging their heels in on the original topic because the original topic was abandoned long ago.

LNH kinda hijacked the thread, and took into a different debate. From "Creation vs evolution" to....

Well LNH is saying one thing (which may, or may not, have anything to do with "evolution vs creation"), and everyone else is trying figure out just WTF she is talking about. :lol:

The topic is about deterministic evolution.

I posted a video of "quantum biology" professors that explicitly say what you science teach taught you about biological systems is wrong; biology appears to be probabilistic, not deterministic.

It's pretty clear.


So... because you disagree with the science of biology, you don't accept it?

I am pointing out the opinion of university science professors, they don't blindly accept it.

They think biology (evolution) is possibly not deterministic.



I think it's safe to say that that's probably the opinion of a (very) few.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Aug 2017, 3:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I think it's safe to say that that's probably the opinion of a (very) few.

Indeterminism is the opinion of a very few?

No, it's the opinion of majority and the majority of interpretations.

See, Interpretations of quantum mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations

But why even say that? Why cling to your Darwin bible, and reject new scientific ideas?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Aug 2017, 3:53 pm

There is a "cause and effect" element to evolution.....but there is not one cause, nor one effect.

That's why it can never be "deterministic"--like 1 + 1 = 2.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Aug 2017, 5:27 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
There is a "cause and effect" element to evolution.....but there is not one cause, nor one effect.

That's why it can never be "deterministic"--like 1 + 1 = 2.

A deterministic process can have multiple causes and effects.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Aug 2017, 5:32 pm

Evolution can be said to have been found credible through circumstantial evidence.

Though there is direct evidence for it, too.



mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

27 Aug 2017, 5:55 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Darwin theorizes evolution is cause and effect (determinism).

These professors suggest that biology may not happen not based on cause, but rather, based on some unknown probability factor/function.

In quantum, we have the "wave function" to explain the apparent non-deterministic behavior of matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

We don't know.

However, anyone promoting deterministic evolution should at least be humble about its truthfulness.

Although the cause for Darwinism is random mutations which effect the likelihood of survival. Statistics is a thing that can be studied you know. The theory relies on randomness to work and it describes how said randomness averages out over long periods of time. That is what evolution does, it can predict the likelihood of certain things. The theory already assumes that there is a lot of randomness involved.

Again, please describe what part of the theory is made impossible by quantum mechanics and what you think the theory actually is.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


Last edited by mikeman7918 on 27 Aug 2017, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Aug 2017, 6:05 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Darwin theorizes evolution is cause and effect (determinism).

These professors suggest that biology may not happen not based on cause, but rather, based on some unknown probability factor/function.

In quantum, we have the "wave function" to explain the apparent non-deterministic behavior of matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

We don't know.

However, anyone promoting deterministic evolution should at least be humble about its truthfulness.

Although the cause for Darwinism is random mutations which effect the likelihood of survival. Statistics is a thing that can be studied you know. The theory relies on randomness to work and it describes how said randomness averages out over long periods of time.

Again, please describe what part of the theory is made impossible by quantum mechanics and what you think the theory actually is.

You don't seem to understand quantum indeterminism.

It means non-casual , randomness.

Darwin thinks "random mutation" based on casual forces is causing evolution.

Quantum indeterminism says , "there doesn't have to be casual forces".

GOD's hand could of reached down and caused human DNA to form.

This is what these quantum biology professors are suggesting, that biology is based on quantum indeterminism.



mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

27 Aug 2017, 6:33 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
You don't seem to understand quantum indeterminism.

It means non-casual , randomness.

Darwin thinks "random mutation" based on casual forces is causing evolution.

Quantum indeterminism says , "there doesn't have to be casual forces".

GOD's hand could of reached down and caused human DNA to form.

This is what these quantum biology professors are suggesting, that biology is based on quantum indeterminism.

Random mutations aren't a prediction of Darwinism, they are a premise. A cause. It should also be noted that randomness and predictability are not mutually exclusive, probabilities are still a thing and theories can still say what outcome is the most likely.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Aug 2017, 6:57 pm

That's right: "most likely," not "deterministic."



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,743
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Aug 2017, 7:52 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I think it's safe to say that that's probably the opinion of a (very) few.

Indeterminism is the opinion of a very few?

No, it's the opinion of majority and the majority of interpretations.

See, Interpretations of quantum mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations

But why even say that? Why cling to your Darwin bible, and reject new scientific ideas?


My point is, it's an opinion of the few that evolutionary biology is some sort of soft science because they have a problem with Darwin. Even if Darwin was wrong about indeterminism, most scientists feel he was still on the right track.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

28 Aug 2017, 7:04 am

Darwin in evolution is like Freud in psychology.

Both were pioneers--yet we've "evolved" in knowledge in both disciplines since the 19th-early 20th century.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

28 Aug 2017, 8:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I think it's safe to say that that's probably the opinion of a (very) few.

Indeterminism is the opinion of a very few?

No, it's the opinion of majority and the majority of interpretations.

See, Interpretations of quantum mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations

But why even say that? Why cling to your Darwin bible, and reject new scientific ideas?


My point is, it's an opinion of the few that evolutionary biology is some sort of soft science because they have a problem with Darwin. Even if Darwin was wrong about indeterminism, most scientists feel he was still on the right track.

Sure, however, indeterminism introduces the possibility of non-causality.

That undermines the evolution argument that species must of "evolved" from prior species.

Quantum indeterminism means human DNA could of spontaneously formed.

Human DNA could of merely been one non-casual, random superposition state that bleeped into existence.