Help Me Debunk this Article

[AV1611VET]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

From your own link:

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, it is.

From your own link:

In context:

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects.

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment illustrates the counterintuitiveness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a typical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Oh quote mining, you so crazy.

 

[sandwiches]

Oh quote mining, you so crazy.

LOL
Expect AV to bow out of this thread for a while to let us forget his wackiness.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL
Expect AV to bow out of this thread for a while to let us forget his wackiness.

I was asked to comment on something, and I commented that it is a reductio ad absurdum ... then backed it up with Wikipedia.

And I'm the one that's wacky?

 

[pgp_protector]

I was asked to comment on something, and I commented that it is a reductio ad absurdum ... then backed it up with Wikipedia.

And I'm the one that's wacky?

Isn't asking a question, that when answered would be a violation of the rules, called baiting ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't asking a question, that when answered would be a violation of the rules, called baiting ?

I guess so ... why?

 

[Non sequitur]

I was asked to comment on something, and I commented that it is a reductio ad absurdum ... then backed it up with Wikipedia.

And I'm the one that's wacky?

Did you not see that it was taken out of context and the exact opposite of what you suggested?

Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead.

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility.

It was a response to Copenhagen's reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Naraoia]

Oh no, I’m not calling you liars. I’m simply letting you know what I’m told by you guys. I’m told a scientific theory is never proven to be true. So you can never tell the truth, can you?

You are so funny.

Evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

It is not "proven" in the mathematical sense. Because of that, it is not absolutely, 100% true. In the same sense as it's not absolutely true that I have two X chromosomes. (I don't think I've ever been karyotyped; certainly haven't seen my karyotype.)

But the bolded statement is true. And evolution is supported by evidence far beyond reasonable doubt, making it, for all intents and purposes, a truth.

When I - or pretty much any other life scientist - talk about evolution as a fact, we are, in our own minds, telling you the truth.

If I have to start explaining this every time I make a point so you absolutely can't twist it to mean something I didn't want to say, I shall be extremely grumpy.

(I know you have this habit of misconstruing what people said. Maybe you want to sound smart. Tell you a secret: smart and smart-a*** are not the same thing.)

But we do repeat what Jesus did. And we obtain results just as He predicted. Every time.

Including when you raise people from the dead and feed thousands of people with a few measly fish?

Probably nothing, since the evolution of tadpoles into frogs is an observed fact and not an imaginary theory.

That is called ontogeny, or development for those not speaking Jargonese. Evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population across generations. Notice how a tadpole is not a population and doesn't span generations.

Well, I think the default position in higher aceldama is that humans "develop" from fetal tissue, with the fetal tissue turning into a human being literally in a moment's time ... that moment being called "childbirth".

What on earth is higher aceldama?

According to one high-caliber scientist, human beings share the same linear stages of embryonic growth as: fish, salamanders, turtles, chickens, pigs, cows, and rabbits.

In what sense? I do hope you're not referring to Haeckel's recapitulation thingy. That crap was recognised as nonsense even before he came up with it.

Some scientists deny this today, stating that rabbits in the Precambrian will disprove evolution.

What does the Precambrian rabbit have to do with embryology?

 

[Naraoia]

Why indeed. However, our fused chromosome is not the sole genetic difference between us and the great apes. I'm not sure what, if anything this fusion did to human phylogeny, but there is evidence that human intelligence is related to that particular chromosome. Coincidence? Serendipity? Who knows...

Number 2 is the second largest human chromosome out of only 23. There's bound to be a few intelligence-related genes on it.

Unless there are long-range regulatory interactions between the two arms that wouldn't have worked with the genes on different chromosomes, I'm not sure how this kind of fusion makes any difference to the phenotype.

(Considering that human and chimp chromosomes are extremely syntenic [see here for #2], if human chromosome 2 is enriched in intelligence-related genes, it's a good bet that the two homologous chimp chromosomes also are. So barring evidence for fusion-related regulatory changes, my vote goes to coincidence.)

You could go now; Why wait, after all you are going there anyway!

That's... kind of... in bad taste.

On a side note, if there is a heaven, Darwin is definitely on the list of people I'd like to meet there!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Number 2 is the second largest human chromosome out of only 23. There's bound to be a few intelligence-related genes on it.

True, but that would mean the corresponding chimp DNA has the same intelligence-related genes - assuming the fusion is what caused intelligence.

Unless there are long-range regulatory interactions between the two arms that wouldn't have worked with the genes on different chromosomes, I'm not sure how this kind of fusion makes any difference to the phenotype.

(Considering that human and chimp chromosomes are extremely syntenic [see here for #2], if human chromosome 2 is enriched in intelligence-related genes, it's a good bet that the two homologous chimp chromosomes also are. So barring evidence for fusion-related regulatory changes, my vote goes to coincidence.)

Maybe the fusion is what allows two otherwise unrelated genes to team up? Sort of like how the bacterial flagellum came from their 'hypodermic needle'.

Oh, and I'm going to have a lot of fun on that website

 

[Naraoia]

True, but that would mean the corresponding chimp DNA has the same intelligence-related genes - assuming the fusion is what caused intelligence.

Maybe the fusion is what allows two otherwise unrelated genes to team up? Sort of like how the bacterial flagellum came from their 'hypodermic needle'.

That would have happened by new protein-protein interactions, which has little to do with where the genes are. (Unless being coexpressed gives them an opportunity to evolve a new interaction.)

The thing is, genomic regions can interact without being physically linked to each other. I don't know much about chromatin domains and stuff, but it certainly seems that they can form between chromosomes.

For interactions that need physical linkage, long-range enhancers come to mind. They can cover pretty big distances (example, also), but I'm not sure they work across telomeres and centromeres

Anyway, unless someone directs us to an actual analysis of the effect of the fusion, this is all a load of speculation...

Oh, and I'm going to have a lot of fun on that website

As far as genome browsers go, Ensemble's is definitely my favourite. It's a pity most of the genomes I'm occupationally interested in are not there

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That would have happened by new protein-protein interactions, which has little to do with where the genes are. (Unless being coexpressed gives them an opportunity to evolve a new interaction.)

The thing is, genomic regions can interact without being physically linked to each other. I don't know much about chromatin domains and stuff, but it certainly seems that they can form between chromosomes.

For interactions that need physical linkage, long-range enhancers come to mind. They can cover pretty big distances (example, also), but I'm not sure they work across telomeres and centromeres

Anyway, unless someone directs us to an actual analysis of the effect of the fusion, this is all a load of speculation...

Yup. Genetics is fascinating, but I'm out of my depth!

As far as genome browsers go, Ensemble's is definitely my favourite. It's a pity most of the genomes I'm occupationally interested in are not there

Which ones are those?

 

[sfs]

Unless there are long-range regulatory interactions between the two arms that wouldn't have worked with the genes on different chromosomes, I'm not sure how this kind of fusion makes any difference to the phenotype.

I think position effects are pretty common in gene expression, so I would expect at least some genes to have altered expression levels simply because of the new location of the centromere and the loss of two telemeres. But that's very general and vague, and I have no clue about what the specific effects would have been.

 

[SkyWriting]

Looking at what I put in bold from your quote, are you suggesting that past forensic events cannot be deduced from physical evidence, or the scientific method cannot deduce the past from physical evidence? Would you elaborate please?

Follow the link for details.

 

[SkyWriting]

Absolutely HOGWASH. It is impossible to see or observe the present. When you look at the sun you are observing it as it was 8 minutes ago.

You are correct. Science can only predict future events which must constantly be reconfirmed. There is no "proof" of an event ever. Conditions leading to the first 100 confirmations MAY change after 100 confirmations and show a hypothesis to be wrong.

For example, erratic signals from space have been considered to be "intelligence" until theories were created to explain how nature could create erratic radio signals naturally. Evidence suggests that these signals are natural, but the possibility remains that they are from intelligent life making them look like natural sources.

Multiple answers can always exist for the truth about past events.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not to mention he is talking about scientific evidence as used in a courtroom, not scientific evidence for research.

Its the same data. Period.

So you'd say that scientific evidence is less valid when a persons life and freedom is on the line than in a research setting. I can only imagine the reason for that is misplaced trust in the lab data.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nice quote mining effort. Especially cutting off th.... <snip>

Quote mining is impossible if the source material is provided.
People should always read the original source material and
decide for themselves their conclusions.
See? I'm not properly siting your post.
But the forum handles that task with the thread tools. : )

How to Cite Sources - wikiHow

 

[Elias526]

There's bound to be a few intelligence-related genes on it.

How can you tell an intelligent gene from a dumb gene? Do they get more A's? Sorry I could not resist.

 

[RickG]

Follow the link for details.

I did, therefore the comment I made. Much is known about the past whether you are willing to accept it or not does not change that fact.

 

[Split Rock]

Quote mining is impossible if the source material is provided.

Not at all... you did it.

People should always read the original source material and decide for themselves their conclusions.

I agree. You should also always lock your car when you leave it. That doesn't mean its OK to steal a CD player from a car if it isn't locked.