Do we humans disprove evolution?

Aussie Pete · Mar 15, 2021

sjastro said:
There are two big questions here.
(1) Explain how computers and GPS function if relativity falls short?
(2) How are monkeys capable of making informed comments?

Explain how a Venus fly trap could evolve. The traps have triggers that detect movement before they spring shut. Otherwise, any debris could set them off. (I know how they work because I have several Venus fly traps.)

If the fly trap evolved without triggers, the species would be producing many unproductive traps. It's hard to see how the species could succeed. If it evolved with trigger mechanisms, how can a brainless plant know that they need triggers to have successful traps?

It is now possible to buy security cameras that can discriminate between human and animal movement. We know that cameras have not always included the software and processing power to achieve this. Someone had to write the software and create the chips. You could have a dumb camera for a billion years and it would stay dumb. Unless there was intelligent intervention to upgrade the camera.

We are getting nearly as clever as nature. Which supposedly does this kind of thing blindly and without any external influence. I don't buy it.

sjastro · Mar 15, 2021

klutedavid said:
General Relativity is limited, in that, it is a construct of the human mind. It may seem important to you that you can know your location, with a GPS. That GPS application supports the concept of General Relativity but does that then mean. That General Relativity is a valid theory that will not one day be discarded?

Will Quantum physics eventually put GR to rest?

However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity; and how gravity can be unified with the three non-gravitational forces—strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.(wikipedia)

Monkey can make informed comments but the passage of time renders those comments irrelevant.

Apart from not answering my questions I admit your response is very clever… for a monkey.
Your have made a rote response without understanding the content.

General relativity is an extension of Newtonian gravity for 10 gravitational potentials involving 10 non linear partial differential equations.
By comparison Newtonian gravity has one gravitational potential and based on linear differential equations.
Despite general relativity being a far superior theory, the mathematics is considerably more complicated and only applicable to a limited number of conditions.

Newtonian gravity has not been discarded; it still forms the bulk of celestial mechanics and is used by NASA to calculate trajectories for interplanetary probes.
The reason is straightforward; under conditions of low velocities and low gravitational potential the general relativity equations reduce to Newton’s equations which become a valid approximation.

Quantum gravity is not going to put general relativity to rest; like Newtonian gravity which is a low order approximation of general relativity; general relativity will be a low order approximation for a quantum gravity theory.
At scales above the quantum level, quantum gravity will reduce to general relativity.
At macro scales general relativity is one of the most tested and experimentally supported theories in physics.

GPS is an example of conditions where general relativity works and Newtonian gravity fails.
The unification of quantum mechanics with special relativity led to quantum electrodynamics from which solid state physics developed and the technological offshoots of transistors, circuit boards and ultimately personal computers.
If special relativity 'came up short' the evolution of the relevant technologies would not have occurred.

sjastro · Mar 15, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
Explain how a Venus fly trap could evolve. The traps have triggers that detect movement before they spring shut. Otherwise, any debris could set them off. (I know how they work because I have several Venus fly traps.)

If the fly trap evolved without triggers, the species would be producing many unproductive traps. It's hard to see how the species could succeed. If it evolved with trigger mechanisms, how can a brainless plant know that they need triggers to have successful traps?

It is now possible to buy security cameras that can discriminate between human and animal movement. We know that cameras have not always included the software and processing power to achieve this. Someone had to write the software and create the chips. You could have a dumb camera for a billion years and it would stay dumb. Unless there was intelligent intervention to upgrade the camera.

We are getting nearly as clever as nature. Which supposedly does this kind of thing blindly and without any external influence. I don't buy it.

Your response has zero relevance to the questions I posed and I am not going to drawn into a discussion on Venus flytraps or intelligent design.

klutedavid · Mar 16, 2021

sjastro said:
Apart from not answering my questions I admit your response is very clever… for a monkey.
Your have made a rote response without understanding the content.

General relativity is an extension of Newtonian gravity for 10 gravitational potentials involving 10 non linear partial differential equations.
By comparison Newtonian gravity has one gravitational potential and based on linear differential equations.
Despite general relativity being a far superior theory, the mathematics is considerably more complicated and only applicable to a limited number of conditions.

Newtonian gravity has not been discarded; it still forms the bulk of celestial mechanics and is used by NASA to calculate trajectories for interplanetary probes.
The reason is straightforward; under conditions of low velocities and low gravitational potential the general relativity equations reduce to Newton’s equations which become a valid approximation.

Quantum gravity is not going to put general relativity to rest; like Newtonian gravity which is a low order approximation of general relativity; general relativity will be a low order approximation for a quantum gravity theory.
At scales above the quantum level, quantum gravity will reduce to general relativity.
At macro scales general relativity is one of the most tested and experimentally supported theories in physics.

GPS is an example of conditions where general relativity works and Newtonian gravity fails.
The unification of quantum mechanics with special relativity led to quantum electrodynamics from which solid state physics developed and the technological offshoots of transistors, circuit boards and ultimately personal computers.
If special relativity 'came up short' the evolution of the relevant technologies would not have occurred.

Hmmmm.

Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe

To understand what is at stake, look back at the precedents. When Einstein unveiled general relativity, he not only superseded Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity; he also unleashed a new way of looking at physics that led to the modern conception of the Big Bang and black holes, not to mention atomic bombs and the time adjustments essential to your phone’s GPS. Likewise, quantum mechanics did much more than reformulate James Clerk Maxwell’s textbook equations of electricity, magnetism and light. It provided the conceptual tools for the Large Hadron Collider, solar cells, all of modern microelectronics.

What emerges from the dust-up could be nothing less than a third revolution in modern physics, with staggering implications. It could tell us where the laws of nature came from, and whether the cosmos is built on uncertainty or whether it is fundamentally deterministic, with every event linked definitively to a cause.

If you wanted to pick a referee in the big-small debate, you could hardly do better than Sean Carroll, an expert in cosmology, field theory and gravitational physics at Caltech. He knows his way around relativity, he knows his way around quantum mechanics, and he has a healthy sense of the absurd: he calls his personal blog Preposterous Universe. Right off the bat, Carroll awards most of the points to the quantum side. “Most of us in this game believe that quantum mechanics is much more fundamental than general relativity is,” he says. That has been the prevailing view ever since the 1920s, when Einstein tried and repeatedly failed to find flaws in the counterintuitive predictions of quantum theory. The recent Dutch experiment demonstrating an instantaneous quantum connection between two widely separated particles – the kind of event that Einstein derided as “spooky action at a distance” – only underscores the strength of the evidence.

(theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists)

SelfSim · Mar 16, 2021

klutedavid said:
... What emerges from the dust-up could be nothing less than a third revolution in modern physics, with staggering implications. It could tell us where the laws of nature came from, and whether the cosmos is built on uncertainty or whether it is fundamentally deterministic, with every event linked definitively to a cause.

I really cannot get over the perception some people have that 'the laws of nature' are some kind of recipe for doing something, other than being just a concise way of describing what just happens to happen!?
That former idea, is like a needle stuck in a record or something!

sjastro · Mar 16, 2021

klutedavid said:
Hmmmm.

Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe

To understand what is at stake, look back at the precedents. When Einstein unveiled general relativity, he not only superseded Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity; he also unleashed a new way of looking at physics that led to the modern conception of the Big Bang and black holes, not to mention atomic bombs and the time adjustments essential to your phone’s GPS. Likewise, quantum mechanics did much more than reformulate James Clerk Maxwell’s textbook equations of electricity, magnetism and light. It provided the conceptual tools for the Large Hadron Collider, solar cells, all of modern microelectronics.

What emerges from the dust-up could be nothing less than a third revolution in modern physics, with staggering implications. It could tell us where the laws of nature came from, and whether the cosmos is built on uncertainty or whether it is fundamentally deterministic, with every event linked definitively to a cause.

If you wanted to pick a referee in the big-small debate, you could hardly do better than Sean Carroll, an expert in cosmology, field theory and gravitational physics at Caltech. He knows his way around relativity, he knows his way around quantum mechanics, and he has a healthy sense of the absurd: he calls his personal blog Preposterous Universe. Right off the bat, Carroll awards most of the points to the quantum side. “Most of us in this game believe that quantum mechanics is much more fundamental than general relativity is,” he says. That has been the prevailing view ever since the 1920s, when Einstein tried and repeatedly failed to find flaws in the counterintuitive predictions of quantum theory. The recent Dutch experiment demonstrating an instantaneous quantum connection between two widely separated particles – the kind of event that Einstein derided as “spooky action at a distance” – only underscores the strength of the evidence.

(theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists)

I notice how in your cut paste and job of a pop sci article how you conveniently cherry pick paragraphs to create the impression quantum mechanics is a more solid theory than general relativity and will ultimately prevail in a unified theory.
What is particularly damning is how you ignored Sean Carroll’s comments about quantum mechanics being useless at cosmological scales.

Yet Carroll’s ruling, while almost entirely pro-quantum, is not purely an endorsement of small-scale thinking. There are still huge gaps in what quantum theory can explain. “Our inability to figure out the correct version of quantum mechanics is embarrassing,” he says. “And our current way of thinking about quantum mechanics is simply a complete failure when you try to think about cosmology or the whole universe. We don’t even know what time is.”

What Sean Carroll is specifically referring to here is using quantum mechanics (or more precisely quantum field theory) to make a prediction of the dark energy density in the universe.
It is only out by a factor of 10¹²⁰ and is the worst prediction ever made in the history of physics.
Quantum mechanics ‘is just as wrong’ at cosmological scales as general relativity is at quantum scales.

Quantum mechanics being a non-phenomenological theory is a fundamental theory or a theory about causes.
General relativity is a semi-phenomenological theory with also examines the effects.
A unified theory would be expected to use quantum mechanical causes to explain general relativity effects at macro scales such as the gravitational bending of light, perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit, and the expansion of the universe.

General relativity is not going to be disposed of as seen in non mainstream theories such as string theory and its variants, or quantum loop gravity where quantum mechanics and general relativity are merged.

Larniavc · Mar 16, 2021

klutedavid said:
Nothing ever just happens without some level of causation.

Not true. Virtual partials zip in and out of existence with no cause.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 16, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
Explain how a Venus fly trap could evolve. The traps have triggers that detect movement before they spring shut. Otherwise, any debris could set them off. (I know how they work because I have several Venus fly traps.)

If the fly trap evolved without triggers, the species would be producing many unproductive traps. It's hard to see how the species could succeed. If it evolved with trigger mechanisms, how can a brainless plant know that they need triggers to have successful traps?

A brief summary: they evolved from insectivorous plants with sticky leaves with sticky hairs (their genetics indicate this). Over time the leaves evolved to curl around hairs that were stimulated (e.g. by an insect) this provided a double selective advantage of trapping the insect and bringing a greater leaf surface area into contact to digest it. Venus flytraps evolved where larger insects were more common, giving a selective advantage to broader, flatter leaves that would close more quickly. The cells that flexed became concentrated along the leaf axis, so the leaf flexed in half, the hairs in the middle became less sticky and more sensitive, and the hairs at the edges became spikes that imprisoned the insect. The trigger hairs reduced in number and eventually the flexing cells became less sensitive to the trigger cells, only responding to multiple stimulations, the selective advantages being to not trigger on inanimate debris or empty carcasses from above falling onto the leaf, and so expending less unnecessary energy, having less 'wear & tear' on the hinge, and being more available to trap more insects.

Estrid · Mar 16, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
Explain how a Venus fly trap could evolve. The traps have triggers that detect movement before they spring shut. Otherwise, any debris could set them off. (I know how they work because I have several Venus fly traps.)

If the fly trap evolved without triggers, the species would be producing many unproductive traps. It's hard to see how the species could succeed. If it evolved with trigger mechanisms, how can a brainless plant know that they need triggers to have successful traps?

It is now possible to buy security cameras that can discriminate between human and animal movement. We know that cameras have not always included the software and processing power to achieve this. Someone had to write the software and create the chips. You could have a dumb camera for a billion years and it would stay dumb. Unless there was intelligent intervention to upgrade the camera.

We are getting nearly as clever as nature. Which supposedly does this kind of thing blindly and without any external influence. I don't buy it.

Explain why you think an omniscient God could not
be clever enough to design a universe that allows
for all sorts of things to happen?
Seems like a mere demigod, whose earth has rivers,
weather, volcanoes that manage without his coaxing
but evolution was just beyond him, so he has to tinker
constantly to keep life going.

Aussie Pete · Mar 16, 2021

Estrid said:
Explain why you think an omniscient God could not
be clever enough to design a universe that allows
for all sorts of things to happen?
Seems like a mere demigod, whose earth has rivers,
weather, volcanoes that manage without his coaxing
but evolution was just beyond him, so he has to tinker
constantly to keep life going.

God can do whatever He likes, however He likes. It so happens that He has told us what He did and how. He did not say why He did what He did except that it is to demonstrate His power. There is no excuse not to believe. If evidence was water, you'd be drowning right now.

Aussie Pete · Mar 16, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
A brief summary: they evolved from insectivorous plants with sticky leaves with sticky hairs (their genetics indicate this). Over time the leaves evolved to curl around hairs that were stimulated (e.g. by an insect) this provided a double selective advantage of trapping the insect and bringing a greater leaf surface area into contact to digest it. Venus flytraps evolved where larger insects were more common, giving a selective advantage to broader, flatter leaves that would close more quickly. The cells that flexed became concentrated along the leaf axis, so the leaf flexed in half, the hairs in the middle became less sticky and more sensitive, and the hairs at the edges became spikes that imprisoned the insect. The trigger hairs reduced in number and eventually the flexing cells became less sensitive to the trigger cells, only responding to multiple stimulations, the selective advantages being to not trigger on inanimate debris or empty carcasses from above falling onto the leaf, and so expending less unnecessary energy, having less 'wear & tear' on the hinge, and being more available to trap more insects.

I remain utterly unconvinced. How could a plant know that insects could be a food source in the first place? How did it develop a digestive system?

Frank Robert · Mar 16, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
I remain utterly unconvinced. How could a plant know that insects could be a food source in the first place? How did it develop a digestive system?

The simple answer is through the emergence of novel traits.

For a better understanding see: How Venus flytraps evolved their taste for meat

Estrid · Mar 16, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
God can do whatever He likes, however He likes. It so happens that He has told us what He did and how. He did not say why He did what He did except that it is to demonstrate His power. There is no excuse not to believe. If evidence was water, you'd be drowning right now.

He did?
Tens of thousands of Christian sects
based on disagreement on what "God said".

The pope, and other educated Christians generally
have no problem accepting that evolution has taken
place over many millions of years.

So unless you are infallible, don't tell me you
know what God had to say.

A vast body of data written into the very earth
itself demonstrates with unmistakable clarity
to (educated) theists of any religion, and atheist alike
that evolution over millions of years is
real. Zero evidence to the contrary btw. Not enough
for a sip, can't drown a ant in it.

There us no excuse besides ignorance for
not knowing that.

If infallible-interpreting of Bible says differently,
well, maybe it isn't so infallible after all.

Estrid · Mar 16, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
I remain utterly unconvinced. How could a plant know that insects could be a food source in the first place? How did it develop a digestive system?

It is so terrifically helpful to know basics before
going on to more advanced questions.
This is comparable to being unconvinced
by something in diophantine geometry when
the student hasn't gotten cubes figured, let
alone an oblate cycloid.

Plants have no digestive system.
The insect is not "food" any more than the soil is.
Basic.

All plants need to extract nitrogen from their
environment by chemical means. All. From soil,
usually, Parasitic plants take it from their hosts.

The "flytrap" gets nitrogen from an insect, a concentrated
source. More common are pitcher plants which
let insects drown and rot, presenting the nitrogen
in an aqueous solution for ready absorption.

Education can be terrific for dispelling confusion.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2021

Estrid said:
He did?
Tens of thousands of Christian sects
based on disagreement on what "God said".

If that concerns you, does it please you that 100% of Christians who ever lived, living today, and will live tomorrow believe in God?

Don't come to me acting as if our differences mean anything, if our similarities don't mean anything either.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2021

Estrid said:
Education can be terrific for dispelling confusion.

What does it do for skepticism and agnosticism? (besides nothing?)

You can talk diophantine geometry and allele frequencies all you want; but if you can't name any of Jesus' disciples, who are you trying to impress?

Speedwell · Mar 16, 2021

AV1611VET said:
If that concerns you, does it please you that 100% of Christians who ever lived, living today, and will live tomorrow believe in God?

It pleases me, but it is not germane to the topic at hand.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 16, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
I remain utterly unconvinced. How could a plant know that insects could be a food source in the first place? How did it develop a digestive system?

A key point to note about evolution is that, for the vast majority of creatures, knowledge doesn't come into it.

Most insectivorous plants evolved in wet, relatively impoverished or sterile niches, typically low in nitrogen and phosphorous. When dead insects dropped onto leaves or drowned in, for example, the little pools of water where leaves meet stems, the nitrogen & phosphorus they contained would leach out and diffuse into the leaf or stem. This gave a selective advantage to plants that trapped larger pools of water, and/or had slippery surfaces around the water, and/or had more permeable cell walls in that area, and/or were more attractive to insects, and/or were growing on or below plants from which insects were likely to fall into those little pools, etc.

The digestive juices contain modifications of the chemicals the plants used to deter and kill pathogens (e.g. bacteria, fungi). Fungal cell walls are made of chitin, the same polymer that insect exoskeletons are made of, so the plants had ready-made enzymes to break down insect armour. There would be a clear selective advantage for more insect-specific chitinases and proteolytic enzymes.

However, I'm not an expert in this field, and this really isn't the place for specific evolutionary biology lessons, so for more details on the evolution of insectivorous plants, I recommend Google - they have quite an effective search engine.

AV1611VET · Mar 16, 2021

Speedwell said:
It pleases me, but it is not germane to the topic at hand.

But do you use our differences as some kind of salient point against believing in God?

klutedavid · Mar 16, 2021

Larnievc said:
Not true. Virtual partials zip in and out of existence with no cause.

How do you know that?

Do you understand Quantum physics beyond what science knows?

Do we humans disprove evolution?

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Leading a blameless life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads