Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Jester4kicks]

BSc, MPA and degree in Theology.
Here is the idea:

I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.

Nose, when you copy and paste the exact same response into both threads on this forum, and onto at least one other thread on another forum, you end up looking like you're not actually discussing anything.

If you're interested in a discussion, try actually DISCUSSING the issues with the people who respond to your threads.

 

[Mallon]

I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.

I'm having a very hard time understanding your position no1nose. Earlier you sounded like a YEC. Now you're saying you have no problem with the science of evolution, except you think its God that induces mutation rather than UV radiation?

By the way, I'm still up to the task of discussing the biological aspects of evolution with you, though I'm not terribly interested in talking about math. There has been little actual talk of math in this thread, despite the title (all hearsay to date). I would sooner talk about the mechanisms of evolution and the evidence in support of it. Stuff we can verify for ourselves. Perhaps you could start a new thread detailing why, say, you think proposed evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of bringing about sufficient change to account for the diversity of life on earth (that is, if you still disagree with the concept of common ancestry).

 

[no1nose]

you have no problem with the science of evolution

and

the science that is associated with Evolution

spot the difference?

I would sooner talk about the mechanisms of evolution and the evidence in support of it. Stuff we can verify for ourselves. Perhaps you could start a new thread detailing why, say, you think proposed evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of bringing about sufficient change to account for the diversity of life on earth (that is, if you still disagree with the concept of common ancestry).

Hey life changes that not a problem but Evolution as an explanation has some bad baggage assoiated with it. One of these is the idea of random mutations. For me the idea of observer determined quantum outcomes at the genetic level provides a feedback loop and would explain the changes that do happen much better than the idea of random.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey life changes that not a problem but Evolution as an explanation has some bad baggage assoiated with it. One of these is the idea of random mutations. For me the idea of observer determined quantum outcomes at the genetic level provides a feedback loop and would explain the changes that do happen much better than the idea of random.

Nope. It is simply 'mutation'. The quantum nature of the atoms involved is negible: it doesn't matter why mutations arise, only that they do. Reproduction with variation is the core of the game.

You are, as ever, conflating a variety of terms that have specific and non-equivalent definitions in a variety of fields. Learn them, and you'll see where you're going wrong.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Hey life changes that not a problem but Evolution as an explanation has some bad baggage assoiated with it. One of these is the idea of random mutations. For me the idea of observer determined quantum outcomes at the genetic level provides a feedback loop and would explain the changes that do happen much better than the idea of random.

Maybe I'm seeing where you're getting confused now.

As you have said, quantum theory tells us that the state of an atom is indeterminant until it is observed by an outside source.

For anyone else here that is not familiar with this idea, look up Schrödinger's cat. To make it simple, the idea is that if you put a cat into a solid box with a vial of poison that will open 1 minute after you close the box, then at some point, the cat could be said to be both dead AND alive. The idea behind this is that the state of the cat's life is not known until you open the box and look.

However, Schrödinger wasn't trying to say that cats can be both alive AND dead at the same time. He was only trying to say that we don't know until we observe the status of the cat.

Nose, to make your point, you seem to be applying this principle in such a manner as to suggest that, at any one moment, Schrödinger could have pointed at the box and said "the cat is dead", without actually looking inside (a determined quantum outcome without observation). Of course, this isn't possible... however, you are twisting that logic a little bit.

You seem to think that the observation drives the conclusion. This is incorrect. In quantum mechanics, the observation only identifies the conclusion. To elaborate; at some point in time, Schrödinger's cat would die inside the box. The fact that nobody witnessed the event does not change the fact that it happened. We only identify that it happened when we open the box. Our observation did not cause the death, it only identified it.

Now, as it has already been said, evolution is not random. Mutations in genetic code may be random (although some are actually quite orderly with the assertion of a particular gene's dominance)... however, no change in the genetic code (orderly OR random) will result in the evolution of the species unless the change facilitates survival or reproduction.

Now, please, don't just post up another tangent. You have people taking the time to intelligently address your ideas... you owe it to them to address their responses before taking off on another point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe I'm seeing where you're getting confused now.

As you have said, quantum theory tells us that the state of an atom is indeterminant until it is observed by an outside source.

For anyone else here that is not familiar with this idea, look up Schrödinger's cat. To make it simple, the idea is that if you put a cat into a solid box with a vial of poison that will open 1 minute after you close the box, then at some point, the cat could be said to be both dead AND alive. The idea behind this is that the state of the cat's life is not known until you open the box and look.

However, Schrödinger wasn't trying to say that cats can be both alive AND dead at the same time. He was only trying to say that we don't know until we observe the status of the cat.

Not quite. Assuming the cat isn't an observer itself, it is both dead and alive. It's not that it's in either one state or the other, it's that it is in a superposition of BOTH states. That's why an electron will go through BOTH slits of a Young's Double-Slit experiment. Incidentally, if you place an 'observer' on one of the slits, the outcome of the experiment changes: it goes from quantum waves to classical particles. Most peculiar.

In short: a partical in an unobserved state truely is in ALL states. Observation collapses the relevant wavefunction, and all subsequent observations of that observable (momentum, position, energy, etc) are the same.


But that's not to say no1nose is right: he is still misrepresenting quantum mechanical concepts and conflating them with similar-sounding concepts from other fields.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Not quite. Assuming the cat isn't an observer itself, it is both dead and alive. It's not that it's in either one state or the other, it's that it is in a superposition of BOTH states. That's why an electron will go through BOTH slits of a Young's Double-Slit experiment. Incidentally, if you place an 'observer' on one of the slits, the outcome of the experiment changes: it goes from quantum waves to classical particles. Most peculiar.

In short: a partical in an unobserved state truely is in ALL states. Observation collapses the relevant wavefunction, and all subsequent observations of that observable (momentum, position, energy, etc) are the same.

But that's not to say no1nose is right: he is still misrepresenting quantum mechanical concepts and conflating them with similar-sounding concepts from other fields.

Well, appreciated... but the bolded statement is exactly what Schrödinger was trying to disprove. Keep in mind, Schrödinger's thought experiment was a reaction to the EPR paradox.

I'll try to find the quote, but Einstein had a great reaction to the theory that kinda summed up my own views on it. Basically, that too much focus on quantum theory can distract from logical reality. i.e. it is physically impossible for a cat to be both alive AND dead at the same time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, appreciated... but the bolded statement is exactly what Schrödinger was trying to disprove. Keep in mind, Schrödinger's thought experiment was a reaction to the EPR paradox.

Correct. However, this just shows that Scrodinger, like Einstein, opposed the mind-boggling consequences of quantum theory. It is in no way a disproof, but rather a highlight of one of the more striking consequences.

I'll try to find the quote, but Einstein had a great reaction to the theory that kinda summed up my own views on it.

Einstein opposed quantum mechanics in its entirety: "God does not play dice". Nevertheless, despite his awesome legacy, Einstein's personal incredulity is no more persuasive than anyone elses'.

Basically, that too much focus on quantum theory can distract from logical reality. i.e. it is physically impossible for a cat to be both alive AND dead at the same time.

But that's just it: it's not. Quantum mechanics has some obscenely counter-intuitive notions, but that does not in any way make it false, or less likely to be true. I mean, why should reality be intuitive? Our intuition never evolved to comprehend the quantum world, merely the classical world. The same goes for special and general relativity: time dilation and Lorentz contraction offend our delicate sensibilities, yet the science is rigourously clear.

That said, Schrödinger's Cat is a thought experiment; quantum superposition of states is a phenomenon that quantum particles experince, not cats in their entirety. Or maybe they do. Who knows...

 

[no1nose]

But that's not to say no1nose is right: he is still misrepresenting quantum mechanical concepts and conflating them with similar-sounding concepts from other fields

.
A couple of years ago I read of a disease causing strain of bacteria that had arrived in two South American countries at the same time. One country had treated water and in a short time the strain of the bacteria became far less virulent but still remained active in the water supply. In the country with untreated water the same strain of bacteria remained virulent and was the cause of a number of deaths. What would be your explanation for this?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A couple of years ago I read of a disease causing strain of bacteria that had arrived in two South American countries at the same time. One country had treated water and in a short time the strain of the bacteria became far less virulent but still remained active in the water supply. In the country with untreated water the same strain of bacteria remained virulent and was the cause of a number of deaths. What would be your explanation for this?

Simple: the bacteria react differently to treated and untreated water. In the former, they lose their toxicity; in the latter, they retain it. This may have something to do with how well they thrive in each environ: if they thrive in untreated water, but struggle to survive in treated water, then the explantion is clear.

What's your point?

 

[no1nose]

Simple: the bacteria react differently to treated and untreated water. In the former, they lose their toxicity; in the latter, they retain it. This may have something to do with how well they thrive in each environ: if they thrive in untreated water, but struggle to survive in treated water, then the explantion is clear.

What's your point?

Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.

I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here. This is the original article http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm

 

[lemmings]

Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.

I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here. This is the original article http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm

This was not a mutation, as you said, it was a strategy. Toxins are expensive to produce for a bacterium; there is no reason to produce them unless they are competing for a scarce resource.


The bacteria is not dumb, part of the definition of life is that it must react to stimulus.

 

[no1nose]

This was not a mutation, as you said, it was a strategy. Toxins are expensive to produce for a bacterium; there is no reason to produce them unless they are competing for a scarce resource.

Don't believe they were competing. This was a change in the organism according to the source article:

Cholera invaded Peru in 1991 and quickly spread throughout South and Central America, in the process providing a ready-made experiment for Ewald. On the day of my tour Saunders had presented to the assembled biology department her honors project, "Geographical Variations in the Virulence of Vibrio cholerae in Latin America." The data compressed in her tables and bar graphs were evidence for Ewald's central thesis: it is possible to influence a disease organism's evolution to your advantage. Saunders used a standard assay, called ELISA, to measure the amount of toxin produced by different strains of cholera, thus inferring the virulence of V. cholerae variants from several Latin American regions. Then she and Ewald looked at figures for water quality -- what percentage of the population had potable water, for example -- and looked for correlations. If virulent strains correlated with a contaminated water supply, and if, conversely, mild strains took over where the water was clean, the implication would be that V. cholerae becomes increasingly mild when it cannot use water as a vector. When the pathogen is denied easy access to new hosts through fecal matter in the water system, its transmission depends on infected people moving into contact with healthy ones. In this scenario the less-toxic variants would prevail, because these strains do not incapacitate or kill the host before they can be spread to others. If this turned out to be true, it would constitute the kind of evidence that Ewald expected to find.

The bacteria is not dumb, part of the definition of life is that it must react to stimulus.

Please expand this statement with reference to the above case of the two countries.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.

I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here.

Why? Those that just so happened to have the mutations that improved their survival would have an improved chance of survival. Chance mutations could completely account for this.

I repeat: why don't you believe mutation would suffice?

 

[no1nose]

I repeat: why don't you believe mutation would suffice?

I see what you mean. As a strategy applies an intelligence or consciousness to an organism that doesn’t have a brain. At some point you have to ask where the strategy is coming from. The changes are occurring too quickly to be explained as simply random. The will take a lot more proof for me to believe in the existence of the meme. The changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. This then brings consciousness to bear on the way life changes.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I see what you mean. As a strategy applies an intelligence or consciousness to an organism that doesn’t have a brain. At some point you have to ask where the strategy is coming from. The changes are occurring too quickly to be explained as simply random.The will take a lot more proof for me to believe in the existence of the meme. The changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. This then brings consciousness to bear on the way life changes.

Ugh... you still don't get it.

You'll probably ignore this... since you seem incapable of standing up to anything I say on the matter... but here goes anyway.

Rapid mutations do not imply "observer"-determinism. Look at viruses, for example. They are able to VERY rapidly adapt to various conditions in order to continue surviving. It basically just comes down to how quickly they can replicate. Viruses LIVE to replicate... they use all sorts of biological "weapons" to ensure they can replicate, survive, and continue replicating. Each time they replicate, there is the potential for mutation or variation. ANY mutation or variation which assists them in replicating (especially if a lack of the mutation results in death) will develop quickly into the norm.

To put it into perspective... let's say a human being has 100 kids every day they are alive. Each one of those kids, from the moment they are born, has another 100 kids, and so on. Now, a weapon arrives that kill the original, and kills 95 of the 2nd generation. Of the 5 remaining, 3 have a mutation that loows them to survive the weapon entirely, and the other two have a slight variation that allows them to partially resist or endure the weapon. Of the 3 that survived entirely, each has a hundred kids. Now there's 303. Each of the 300 have 100 kids... now there's 30,303... all of which are completely immune to the weapon that killed the first generation and most of the second.

Do you see how a single (possibly even MINOR) mutation or variation could cause rapid adaptation?

 

[no1nose]

Do you see how a single (possibly even MINOR) mutation or variation could cause rapid adaptation

?

Your model implies that organisms mutate in “all directions” at the same time. This is what would be needed to respond so quickly to specific threats that could come from anywhere. However to do this would be, in itself, very disadvantageous for survival. Instead quick response to threats implies some kind of guidance from consciousness.

 

[lemmings]

?

Your model implies that organisms mutate in “all directions” at the same time. This is what would be needed to respond so quickly to specific threats that could come from anywhere. However to do this would be, in itself, very disadvantageous for survival. Instead quick response to threats implies some kind of guidance from consciousness.

How is diversity bad for survival?

Buy a pack of a dozen dice and throw them onto the floor. Now tell a kid to pick up all the dice that did not roll a 3. Chances are that 2 dice will remain on the floor.

If you only rolled 1 dice, chances are that when that kid comes along to take the dice that didn’t roll a 3, he would have taken it.



Have you ever taken a probability or statistics class? Even Algebra 2 dealt with this subject!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I see what you mean. As a strategy applies an intelligence or consciousness to an organism that doesn’t have a brain. At some point you have to ask where the strategy is coming from.

Um... what?

The changes are occurring too quickly to be explained as simply random.

Source?

The will take a lot more proof for me to believe in the existence of the meme.

What does meme have to do with it? Bacterial evolution doesn't even have kin selection, let alone meme selection.

The changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. This then brings consciousness to bear on the way life changes.

The observer effect has no relevance to evolution:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

?

Your model implies that organisms mutate in “all directions” at the same time. This is what would be needed to respond so quickly to specific threats that could come from anywhere. However to do this would be, in itself, very disadvantageous for survival. Instead quick response to threats implies some kind of guidance from consciousness.

Ah, I see what you mean. However, in real life, threats make themselves known as probabilities, and new predators & harsher environments very rarely occur in sudden bursts (and when they do, this is quickly followed by a Major Extinction Event).

With that in mind and given the timescales involved (relatively long geological periods of change, relatively short reproductive cycles), concious direction is not required for organisms to adapt. Indeed, in the 1950s, Dmitri Belyaev showed that it took wild silver foxes only twenty years to evolve to be as tame as dogs. So even in complex mammals, behaviour instincts can be rapidly changed (this is useful for, say, diminishing food supplies, or encroaching territories).

Though I must say, this is a novel argument against evolution.