Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[no1nose]

Put simply: science and mythmaking are both respectable and useful vocations, but they are different. I don't want prophets practicing biology, and I don't want biologists handing down God's law.

Just an opinion, hope I made sense.

I think that you are trying to put things into boxes.

I think life does change but on the basis of consciousness and not random mutations and not into new species. The key to us understanding change in the world around us the role of what is called the observer. The “observer” influences and determines the outcome of changes in events from quantum to macro social. It was Niels Bohr who championed this concept in the 1930’s when the meaning of quantum mechanics was being hotly debated by the top thinkers of that time

At the heart of quantum theory is Bohr’s concept of complementarity. This he made great pains to point out can apply to macro systems. Bohr I believe was the first to point out that Margaret Mead’s “Coming of Age in Samoa” was a case of “observer created reality”. In the case of evolution it is the slowness of the process that gives the illusion that there can be an objective observer (observers are never objective but always influence the outcome). This then leads one to self-fulfilling observations rather than any so called objective reality.

A recent book, Faust in Copenhagen: A Struggle for the Soul of Physics by Gino Segrè (Viking, 310 pp., $25.95) review:
"But Bohr in 1932 proposed to extend the idea of complementarity to biology, suggesting that the description of a living creature as an organism and the description of it as a collection of molecules are also complementary. In this context, complementarity would mean that any attempt to observe and localize precisely every molecule in a living creature would result in the death of the organism. The holistic view of a creature as a living organism and the reductionist view of it as a collection of molecules would be both correct but mutually exclusive. …

So far I don't think anyone has got their head around this and responded in a sensible way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think that you are trying to put things into boxes.

And you are trying to obfuscate the distinctions with equivocation and sophistry.

I think life does change but on the basis of consciousness and not random mutations and not into new species.

Then prepare to be amazed:

(Are you sitting down for this?)

SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED!

REPEATEDLY!!

We theists would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling atheists *shakes fist*.

The key to us understanding change in the world around us the role of what is called the observer. The “observer” influences and determines the outcome of changes in events from quantum to macro social.

*beep*

No. You are equivocating two definitions of the word 'observer', one colloquial, one quantum mechanical. Try again.

It was Niels Bohr who championed this concept in the 1930’s when the meaning of quantum mechanics was being hotly debated by the top thinkers of that time

At the heart of quantum theory is Bohr’s concept of complementarity. This he made great pains to point out can apply to macro systems.

*beep*

No. Complementarity is a purely quantum mechanical assumption, since macroscopic (i.e., classical) systems are either particles or waves, irrespective of measurement.

Bohr I believe was the first to point out that Margaret Mead’s “Coming of Age in Samoa” was a case of “observer created reality”. In the case of evolution it is the slowness of the process that gives the illusion that there can be an objective observer (observers are never objective but always influence the outcome). This then leads one to self-fulfilling observations rather than any so called objective reality.

I'm struggling to see how you make the leap from quantum mechanics to evolution. Since when did evolution require an observer (objective or otherwise?)

A recent book, Faust in Copenhagen: A Struggle for the Soul of Physics by Gino Segrè (Viking, 310 pp., $25.95) review:
"But Bohr in 1932 proposed to extend the idea of complementarity to biology, suggesting that the description of a living creature as an organism and the description of it as a collection of molecules are also complementary. In this context, complementarity would mean that any attempt to observe and localize precisely every molecule in a living creature would result in the death of the organism. The holistic view of a creature as a living organism and the reductionist view of it as a collection of molecules would be both correct but mutually exclusive. …

So far I don't think anyone has got their head around this and responded in a sensible way.

I find it interesting that your objection to evolutionary theory is a proposition made over seventy years ago. One which, I might add, I haven't heard of since. What Bohr appears to be proposing is a thought experiment: precise measurement of all the positions of all the particles in an organism would lead to effectively randomised momentum, resulting in the organism's im/explosion. Or something like that.

But what does that have to do with evolution, the theory of evolution, and/or the theory of common descent?

 

[no1nose]

Then prepare to be amazed:

(Are you sitting down for this?)

SPECIATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED!

REPEATEDLY!!

I sit down and then nothing happens? Please give some details of one of your many examples.

Maybe go here and have a look :http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html


v

 

[sfs]

Nowadays, perhaps out of intellectual necessity, a scientist will (usually, not always) make the claim that the theory of evolution is irrelevant to the ideas of progess and improvement. He will claim that the word "evolve" actually doesn't mean evolve as the average layperson defines it, i.e., changing from lower to higher. He'll say rather that to evolve merely means to change - backwards, forwards or sideways. The very metaphors "lower, higher, backwards, forwards and sideways" each imply value. (I don't know how to speak of these ideas without metaphor, it may not be possible.)

"Different" or "more recent" describe change without ascribing value.

To believe that the introduction of life into the universe is good or bad, or to believe that biological life on earth is hierarchical requires a poet, someone to place a value judgment on the change.

I wouldn't look to a poet for value judgments; they're mostly expected to be good at poetry. (Besides, no one pays any attention to poets these days.)

So a biologist should, for example, discuss the mechanisms whereby a living cell reproduces itself and stick to that. The biologist need not concen himself with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is not a scientific process, it's a historical event. If Nazi Germany still existed, it would be merely an ongoing event.

Here's where I start to lose you. Biologists need not concern themselves with Nazi Germany because Nazi Germany is not their field of study. "Events", whether historical or ongoing, are subject to scientific investigation (indeed, one might argue that science investigate nothing but events), and much historical investigation is scientific in character.

Likewise, the biologist need not concern himself with "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest", they also are not scientific processes. If they occurred (and are occurring), they are historical events. If they didn't, they are myth. Either way, they are not scientific processes.

Here you're simply wrong. Natural selection, unlike Nazi Germany, is part of the field of study of biologists, and it is in fact actively studied. Biologists study both historical and ongoing instances of natural selection. In fact, it's rather a hot topic at present, thanks to the massive increase in genetic data that are now available.

They are mythological concepts whether or not they are "true". A more complex organism is not necessarily a more "fit" organism, and there's no claiming man is "higher" than bacteria unless you mythologize.

Fitness and selection have nothing to do with value judgments. "More fit" just means "having physical characteristics making it more likely to survive and reproduce". Fitness is usually only a meaningful concept within a species, by the way.

You may respond that a historcal event and a myth are two different things. You'd be only partly correct in making that distinction, because all current interpretation of any (and all) historical events is mythological, at least in so far as value is assigned to the event. So my point is that the interpretation, the supplying of meaning and implications to historical events, is properly not done by scientists. It shouldn't be done, and when it is done, it almost always results in the same confusion I see in this thread and many other discussions of evolution.

I have seen very few instances of scientists supplying meaning or value to natural selection, and I don't recall any in this thread. Could you point some out?

 

[no1nose]

I have seen very few instances of scientists supplying meaning or value to natural selection, and I don't recall any in this thread. Could you point some out?

Not assigning value is a type of value itself. Amoral is a type of morally. You are only fooling yourself when you think you create a set without any connection with human moral values.

 

[lemmings]

I sit down and then nothing happens?

It would seem to me that your experiment consisting of you sitting down disproves your own theory that a sentient organism has the ability to mutate at will.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Math Logic Disproves Evoution

No it doesn't.

Next?

 

[no1nose]

Now for a little lite entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I sit down and then nothing happens? Please give some details of one of your many examples.

Take a look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/No_new_species_have_been_observed

For a review of speciation itself, go to here.

Maybe go here and have a look :http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

I'm aware of the uncertainty principles and their implications, thank you. I still don't see what this has to do with evolution, though.

 

[no1nose]

Originally Posted by no1nose

I sit down and then nothing happens? Please give some details of one of your many examples.
​

Take a look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ion.html#part5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/No_n..._been_observed

For a review of speciation itself, go to here.


Originally Posted by no1nose

Maybe go here and have a look :http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html
​

I'm aware of the uncertainty principles and their implications, thank you. I still don't see what this has to do with evolution, though.

I had a look and am not convinced that anything more than adaption is happening.

"Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island."

Its not speciation if it still referred to as a mouse.

Can I stand up now?

 

[Melethiel]

What is your definition of "species"? It seems to be different from the one in use by the scientific community.

 

[lemmings]

What is your definition of "species"? It seems to be different from the one in use by the scientific community.

Going by his second to last line. He uses the layman's definiton of species that usualy exists between order and family.


"Its not speciation if it still referred to as a mouse."

A mouse is a small animal that belongs to one of numerous species of rodents.

So what if most people still refer to it as a mouse, mouse is not a definition of a species.

 

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by no1nose
I had a look and am not convinced that anything more than adaption is happening.

What do you think is happening when populations adapt? Through what process and mechanisms is adaptation made possible?


What "more than adaptation" were you looking for?

Its not speciation if it still referred to as a mouse.

Were you under the impression that "mouse" refers to a species? Many species are referred to as mice. Why not more?

 

[no1nose]

Originally Posted by no1nose

Originally Posted by no1nose
I had a look and am not convinced that anything more than adaption is happening.
​

What do you think is happening when populations adapt? Through what process and mechanisms is adaptation made possible?


What "more than adaptation" were you looking for?

Its not speciation if it still referred to as a mouse.
​

Were you under the impression that "mouse" refers to a species? Many species are referred to as mice. Why not more?

All this seems very vague to me and open to other interpretations.

In a recent video Dr. Ali G refers to a person known as Rainbow Jeremy. Turns out he is a real person. Would you consider him an example of "speciation"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU0Kfj_lLJo
​

 

[lemmings]

All this seems very vague to me and open to other interpretations.

What other interpretations are there? When you have children, these children will have mutations that you didn't have. Once in a while, someone will have a kid that has a mutation that makes him more fertile and the next thing you know he has 20 kids carrying his genes. After a few generations these mutations become more prominent and everyone in a population will have them. If a group of people are stuck on an island few a few generations while this is happening, they won’t get those wonderful mutations in their linage and there may become too much of a difference between them for them to reproduce when they come back to the mainland. Viola, we have a new species.

In a recent video Dr. Ali G refers to a person known as Rainbow Jeremy. Turns out he is a real person. Would you consider him an example of "speciation"?

Who is ‘Rainbow Jeremy’ and why should I care about a guy with 266 page views on YouTube?

 

[no1nose]

What other interpretations are there? When you have children, these children will have mutations that you didn't have. Once in a while, someone will have a kid that has a mutation that makes him more fertile and the next thing you know he has 20 kids carrying his genes. After a few generations these mutations become more prominent and everyone in a population will have them. If a group of people are stuck on an island few a few generations while this is happening, they won’t get those wonderful mutations in their linage and there may become too much of a difference between them for them to reproduce when they come back to the mainland. Viola, we have a new species.


Who is ‘Rainbow Jeremy’ and why should I care about a guy with 266 page views on YouTube?

Look, I asked for one example.

Instead instead I got pages of techno baffle. If you can not present one case clearly then don't bother.


.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Look, I asked for one example.

Instead instead I got pages of techno baffle. If you can not present one case clearly then don't bother.


.

You've been given examples. If you are not comprehending the technical information that explains them, thats not really the fault of the person doing the explaining. Biology is complicated, if you don't like that it can't be explained in 4 word sentences, take it up with the guy who designed the universe to have such a high level of complexity.

 

[no1nose]

If you are not comprehending the technical information that explains them, thats not really the fault of the person doing the explaining. Biology is complicated, if you don't like that it can't be explained in 4 word sentences, take it up with the guy who designed the universe to have such a high level of complexity

.


Ha Ha Ha very funny - you just don't have the goods! One example isn't much to ask and you simply don't have one.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

.


Ha Ha Ha very funny - you just don't have the goods! One example isn't much to ask and you simply don't have one.

You've been given example after example.

 

[Melethiel]

no1nose, you still haven't answered my question. How would you define a "species"?