Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

They're still mammals, though.

Yes.

Their ancestors split away from our ancestors soon after mammals first evolved.

Creationist Bingo
VVV
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Creationist_argument_Bingo

Creationists think that this can't happen.
VVV

Deal with it. This is real.

Computer processors are made with billions of transistors and they use quantum tunneling to work to. Technically this does mean that there is an inconceivably small but non-zero chance that a transistor can let a bit of electricity through when it shouldn't while running an add command to make a calculator show that 2+2=5. Weather the universe is deterministic or random doesn't matter in this case, because since we don't know everything we can only guess at the probability of a quantum event happening even if it was destined to happen since the beginning of time.

For the sake of this argument I don't care if quantum mechanics has anything to do with photosynthesis because regardless of what the answer is it has no effect on my argument that evolution is real. Either way it is a product of evolution and not evolution it's self. Also, your assertion that any degree of randomness whatsoever completely breaks causality is a non-sequitur. From what I understand the problem you have with evolution is that it involves cause and effect and quantum mechanics effects parts of biology which somehow disproves causality apparently. If your argument is correct it would mean that causality can't effect biological organisms in either way which means that your reply causing me (as a biological organism) to compose a response disproves your argument because it means that causality effects biological organisms especially on the large scale where evolution is concerned. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be what you are arguing.

By the way, what exactly have I said that's wrong? I stand by everything I have said, and if you have a problem with any of it then feel free to point out a specific example so that I can cite my sources.

You don't appear to have the knowledge of quantum to participate in this discussion.

Do you understand quantum superposition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Do you understand "Schrodinger's Cat" and "QBits"?
Something can be true and false at the same time.
Something can be here and there at the same time.

Do you understand "the wave function" collapase with respect to the "wave function"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

If you do, then you should understand the concepts of determinism, indeterminism, true randomness, non-casual randomness, casual randomness ...

Specifically, do you know why we use probability math in the "wave function"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

Are you familiar with the quantum models? Do you know why the majority suggest nature functions indeterminstically? Do you understand the deterministic physicists/philosophers, and why they promote the idea of "remote hidden variables"?

These are well-known scientific ideas that underlie what these quantum professors are discussing, yet, you continuously make confusing posts because you don't appear to have this knowledge.

I am never said you are wrong, because I don't know that. However, it's frustrating to have to continuously provide explanation.

It's a bit rich that you express frustration with others when you're not actually making sense, you "provide explanations" by linking Wikipedia articles and cite people who clearly believe in and utilize logic when you yourself don't believe in it as a concept, and presume to talk down to people who clearly understand evolution better than you do by pretending that quantum physics is the only valid science, and using the word "quantum" more often than Deepak Chopra, as though it's a valid replacement consistency.


Also, there is a very important distinction between "causal" and "casual".

I still say that you are misusing the word "deterministic". A better word is "Causal".

"Deterministic" implies "predestined in a fine tuned way". Newton's laws of motion are "deterministic" (every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and object in motion will remain in motion etc).

Darwin said one kind of frog could evolve into another kind of frog, and (given enough time) evolve into some other kinda critter quite different from a frog. But he didn't say that you could predict in a fine tuned way how frogs of the future would evolve (what exact pattern of spots they would have on their backs) the way that Newton could predict how cannonballs in flight would behave with simple equations.

But that is all beside the point.

So you are saying this: that something as complex as the entire human genome could just fall out of the sky by magic without it being in an organism that evolved for many generations from another organism?

So what exactly does that mean?

How exactly would that work?

Lets say that Earth had no mammals. Its a planet teeming with life (like it is now), but lets say that there are only insects and plants.

Are you saying that over night one insect on this planet could just give birth to a human? A catepiller could just appear one day possessing the entire human genome even though neither of its butterfly parents had any DNA in common with a human?

The

"Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature

Predeterminism "is the idea that all events are determined in advance"

Darwin proposed determinism, or casual determinism, not "hardcore determinism".


How does quantum superposition work?

No one knows.

How can a quantum computer have a bit that is both "1" and "0", and neither "1" and neither "0" at the same time?
How can Schrodinger's Cat be both dead and alive at the same time?

That's how it supposedly works; a world were anything is possible.

So, imagine everything, perhaps all of that it's possible, and even more.

That's why quantum computers are suppose to be so much computationally faster, they operate in the realm of possibilities, where reality is all potential realities.

I make perfect sense to people with a physics education. Deltaville and I, a WP user, a physics professor too, are always agreeing.

I never talk down to people. I make enormous effort to explain to people.

I don't pretend any science is valid. If you read what I write, I call them "con man scientists" because it's science that pretends to know things that it can't truly know.

If you know something about this subject then speak up.

What do you know that these quantum biology professors don't know?

No offense, but on a 'trust' aspect, I'd trust Wolfram's opinion on science, he's well read and knowledgeable on a variety of STEM subjects. Hell, his screen name is a play on the most boring and dry scientific/math software available for god's sake, he's no neophyte in this discussion. You're better off attacking his claims and logic than you are his reputation and intelligence.

He hasn't said anything.

His only contribution is to attack someone out of his ignorance of physics.

If he thinks he knows something he's welcome to take my earlier test ... but don't hold your breath.

Someone who makes it personal like that , is saying, "I don't know much about this subject ...".

And realize when he says 'I don't know much' that's still more knowledge than 95% of people out there on the same subject. On a side note: no one is well versed in 'quantum biology' because it's only been taught for about a decade, yes the principles have been around since the '40's but wide spread acceptance and thus research/teaching on the subject only started at the turn of the century. It's not a mature field of science by any means, and because of that proceed with caution because new fields are ripe with inconsistency and anomalies that can easily been seen as standard without a body of research to gain a fuller understanding.

Thanks for not answering my question "how would that work?".

A computer that randomly replaces an 0 with a 1 is hardly the same thing as the whole human genome just popping into existence.

You're not getting "quantum computing".

Quantum computing promises that a bit can be both a '0" and a "1" at the same time.

If that's true ... that something can be true and not true at the same time .... then you should re-think what is possible, you should re-think whether antecedent basis is necessary for explanation.

Do you know the majority of quantum interpretations are 'indeterministic' explanations? For these interpretations, antecedent, causal events are not necessary. 'Indeterminism' provides an alternate explanation to biological determinism, or the theory of evolution.

That's where science is going -- into the imaginative realm.

Well gee whiz...

Thank you Tinkerbell for all of the glittering generalities about "imagination". Brings a tear to my eye.

But for the third time...will you please answer my question!

What exactly are you talking about?

Are you saying that something as vast and complex as the entire human genome could just pop into existence out of nowhere with out antecedents?

And how would envision that happening. What could it do if that even happened if the genome weren't inside the cells of a living organism.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 31 Aug 2017, 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.