Teaching of creationism in US public school science classes has dropped over past 12 years

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ah, that's a fun physics question, and we might guess right off there can also be the uncommon instances where the coin could land on it's edge and perhaps bounce and then balance on it's edge, as you might guess, or....even rarer starting conditions where the outcome would sometimes be unpredictable even with our best measurement!

Because of quantum uncertainty, there are some instances of just-so starting conditions where the landing of the coin where the quantum uncertainty in measurement of initial starting conditions would prevent you from being able to be sure of a certain outcome due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which prevents precise measurement of every aspect of position and velocity to perfect exactness.

And that's not all. It may be even more fraught with uncertainty than we'd guess even with that, in the view of a more speculative possibility in QM of some true randomness which might affect a near-the-edge-between-2-outcomes situations.

In the biological sciences, at least, 'random' means unpredictable. As you say, it may be that there are no 'truly random' events - after all, the evolution of the Schrodinger equation is deterministic, and the appearance of randomness could be due to the 'Lottery Effect' (self-locating uncertainty).

I doubt the Uncertainty Principle is relevant to measuring macroscopic objects such as coins as it is practically impossible to measure the position and momentum of the whole of a macroscale object within the relevant timescale; and quantum effects are also unlikely to be relevant given such a tiny Compton wavelength.

 

[Halbhh]

In the biological sciences, at least, 'random' means unpredictable. As you say, it may be that there are no 'truly random' events - after all, the evolution of the Schrodinger equation is deterministic, and the appearance of randomness could be due to the 'Lottery Effect' (self-locating uncertainty).

I doubt the Uncertainty Principle is relevant to measuring macroscopic objects such as coins as it is practically impossible to measure the position and momentum of the whole of a macroscale object within the relevant timescale; and quantum effects are also unlikely to be relevant given such a tiny Compton wavelength.

For the overwhelming majority -- just to illustrate, something well over 99.9% of the time -- of hand coin tosses if one had great measuring instruments we could in principle measure the position and orientation and movement of the coin with adequate accuracy so that in theory if we had sufficient computing power we could then predict the outcome of head or tails or edge. Well over some high portion such as illustratively above 99% of the time, and perhaps much higher.

But not 100% . Just from the uncertainty principle alone, the limits of measurement. When the conditions are by chance on rare instances too close the the boundary between going one way or the other, so that the tiny uncertainty in measurement is suddenly not-so-tiny relative to the closeness of the nearby boundary in conditions between the head vs tails outcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the overwhelming majority -- just to illustrate, something well over 99.9% of the time -- of hand coin tosses if one had great measuring instruments we could in principle measure the position and orientation and movement of the coin with adequate accuracy so that in theory if we had sufficient computing power we could then predict the outcome of head or tails or edge.

But we don't have these "great measuring instruments" to cover all the variables, and so these "missing links" cannot be microcoded into a mechanical hand that can flip a coin and have it land as programmed every single time.

Science is myopic.

 

[Halbhh]

But we don't have these "great measuring instruments" to cover all the variables, and so these "missing links" cannot be microcoded into a mechanical hand that can flip a coin and have it land as programmed every single time.

Science is myopic.

Yes, science is, as as been said I think, kinda like searching in a large dark room with a dim tiny light that barely shines and trying to figure out what is being encountered, and guessing at things not seen.

Yes.

But, over time, gradually, quite a lot is figured out. Consider Isaac Newton as an example. Gravity works very close to just as he described it (it's a very good approximation). That's not an accident. He found the good approximate equations in the situation where the gravity field isn't too intense, which is most places and much of the time.

Ideally, science is only that -- just the effort to understand how things work. We needn't try to criticize that basic aspect of science, which every last person does at times in life, such as when you try to figure out how to better water your lawn or how to trace where the ants are entering the house from, etc. Trying to understand how things work isn't a bad thing, but just something God created us to naturally do. But we can indeed take anything and misuse it. Still, we should never blame all scientists for the errors of a few where they go past science and try to claim things they haven't (or cannot) test(ed).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the overwhelming majority -- just to illustrate, something well over 99.9% of the time -- of hand coin tosses if one had great measuring instruments we could in principle measure the position and orientation and movement of the coin with adequate accuracy so that in theory if we had sufficient computing power we could then predict the outcome of head or tails or edge. Well over some high portion such as illustratively above 99% of the time, and perhaps much higher.

But not 100% . Just from the uncertainty principle alone, the limits of measurement. When the conditions are by chance on rare instances too close the the boundary between going one way or the other, so that the tiny uncertainty in measurement is suddenly not-so-tiny relative to the closeness of the nearby boundary in conditions between the head vs tails outcome.

Sure - I agree that we can't be certain of the results. I just don't think the U.P. or QM is relevant at this scale. I'm suggesting we just can't measure the initial conditions with sufficient accuracy well above the scales where such effects might be significant. YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But we don't have these "great measuring instruments" to cover all the variables, and so these "missing links" cannot be microcoded into a mechanical hand that can flip a coin and have it land as programmed every single time.

We can certainly make a machine to reliably toss a coin to land head or tails - even a human coin toss can be surprisingly predictable given a little practice. The predictability problem generally arises when the height of the toss and the rate of spin exceed a certain threshold.

It's the same kind of calculation as the 'toast drop' - if you slowly slide a face-up piece of toast off the edge of a typical-height table, it will fall face down, because it doesn't have time to rotate further. As you raise the height of the drop (even skipping heights where edge landings make the result unpredictable), there will come a point where the number of rotations is large enough for other variables to have significant effect and make the end result significantly less predictable.

 

[Halbhh]

Sure - I agree that we can't be certain of the results. I just don't think the U.P. or QM is relevant at this scale. I'm suggesting we just can't measure the initial conditions with sufficient accuracy well above the scales where such effects might be significant. YMMV.

That's the beauty of it in a way -- most of the time QM doesn't seem to matter at the macro scale, just due to the averaging of huge numbers of particles. It's fun to think about how exceptions arise, where the micro affects the macro. For instance, a painted steel bridge. The estimate of how long the paint will last before rusting is a kind of statistical averaging based estimate in a way. But, in some random spot, a rust molecule could form earlier than generally expected, but once one does I hear from one person I know that once rust starts it tends to progress in and of itself, rust helping to cause nearby iron around it to rust. So, despite an idea a paint coat should last a certain time, inspection is wise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...For instance, a painted steel bridge. The estimate of how long the paint will last before rusting is a kind of statistical averaging based estimate in a way. But, in some random spot, a rust molecule could form earlier than generally expected, but once one does I hear from one person I know that once rust starts it tends to progress in and of itself, rust helping to cause nearby iron around it to rust. So, despite an idea a paint coat should last a certain time, inspection is wise.

"Trust, but verify"

 

[Tayla]

Sad because the statistical probability of evolution through random mutation accounting for the genesis of a new species is calculated as 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it.

It is straightforward problem to calculate the probability of a mutation in DNA accounting for a new functional protein composed of 140 amino acids in a chain, with there being 20 different amino acids to chose from for each of those 140 slots. Recently scientists were able to calculate how many different arrangements of these amino acids would result in a functioning protein, we know how many proteins you might need in a species, and there you go, simply math problem to figure out the odds. What the odds say is there is absolutely, positively no way all the species that show up at the Cambrian explosion could have evolved due to random mutations.

I don't think this is the right way to use probability. Rather, we should determine the probability that a mutation occurs (often). Each of these will generate a new protein. Some of these will prove useful.

You don't have to design all species all at once. That would never happen. Each small mutation builds on what has already occurred.

 

[ZNP]

I don't think this is the right way to use probability. Rather, we should determine the probability that a mutation occurs (often). Each of these will generate a new protein. Some of these will prove useful.

You don't have to design all species all at once. That would never happen. Each small mutation builds on what has already occurred.

The creature has to be viable to reproduce. So yes, you have to start with a species that can reproduce.

Once you have a species you can get incredible variation from random mutations because you are making very small changes. Look at the variation in dogs, that is incredible. But you have to start with a dog that can reproduce. Virtually every major phyla appeared during a 15 million year period known as the Cambrian explosion. Darwin was aware that this was impossible with his theory so he predicted we would find "missing links". Instead we have found the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has shrunk.

 

[Tayla]

The creature has to be viable to reproduce. So yes, you have to start with a species that can reproduce.

All you need at the beginning is a sac having contents inside different than outside, and that this sac splits into two similar sacs. Lipids almost automatically do this on their own.

 

[Tayla]

Once you have a species you can get incredible variation from random mutations because you are making very small changes.

You can go from each step via very small changes. It took a billion years before the first multi-cellular organism appeared. That's a long time for all the internal machinery of the cell to develop.

 

[Tayla]

Virtually every major phyla appeared during a 15 million year period known as the Cambrian explosion.

Apparently the necessary cellular framework was in place at the beginning the Cambrian explosion. And likely, a few key mutations triggered it all after that.

I don't get why this is used to disprove evolution.

Darwin didn't know about cellular microbiology so, naturally, he was mystified by it all.

 

[ZNP]

I don't get why this is used to disprove evolution.

It isn't being used to disprove evolution. The theory of evolution to explain small random changes in species has all but been proven, demonstrated and observed.

The problem is if you take the bare minimum to have a viable phyla you need quite a few different proteins (just one of the many things you need). The odds of a random mutation causing amino acids to line up in a chain approximately 140 long to make one of these functional proteins is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it. By comparison the odds of winning the lottery is only 1 out of 1 with 8 zeros after it. It is ridiculous to think this is the best explanation for how this happened.

 

[Tayla]

The odds of a random mutation causing amino acids to line up in a chain approximately 140 long to make one of these functional proteins is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it.

This is not what they do. They are not trying to construct a specific protein randomly. Small changes occur until you finally end up with the protein in question.

As an analogy, say you are living in 1800 and wish to predict what will happen today. The odds of guessing the right answer is near zero. Yet something actually did happen today.

Or the lottery. The odds of winning the lottery are tiny. Yet the odds that someone wins is 100%.

 

[ZNP]

This is not what they do. They are not trying to construct a specific protein randomly. Small changes occur until you finally end up with the protein in question.

Small changes occur every time the organism replicates or propagates. You have to first have an organism that can replicate for that to happen.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The odds of a random mutation causing amino acids to line up in a chain approximately 140 long to make one of these functional proteins is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it. By comparison the odds of winning the lottery is only 1 out of 1 with 8 zeros after it. It is ridiculous to think this is the best explanation for how this happened.

Creationist math, don't you just love it? The odds of a gene duplication (one type of mutation) producing a viable protein is close to 1 in 1, which is very, very far from your calculation. You are almost 40 orders of magnitude off!

You should avoid the creationist websites you have cited. They are designed to hook in gullible people who do not understand much statistics or much biology.

 

[ZNP]

Creationist math,

Otherwise known as math. Atheists embrace science and math until it is inconvenient, then it becomes "creationists math". A protein is a string of amino acids. These strings vary in length, but on average 140 amino acids in a chain is a reasonable average number. There are 20 different amino acids and any one can be put into any one of those 140 slots. This math is very simple, 20 raised to the power of 140. Simple, really. Everyone completing high school math should be able to calculate this.

don't you just love it? The odds of a gene duplication (one type of mutation) producing a viable protein is close to 1 in 1, which is very, very far from your calculation. You are almost 40 orders of magnitude off!

You should avoid the creationist websites you have cited. They are designed to hook in gullible people who do not understand much statistics or much biology.

Great job in totally ignoring all the facts presented in this thread and showing yourself to be totally arrogant.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Otherwise known as math. Atheists embrace science and math until it is inconvenient, then it becomes "creationists math". A protein is a string of amino acids. These strings vary in length, but on average 140 amino acids in a chain is a reasonable average number. There are 20 different amino acids and any one can be put into any one of those 140 slots. This math is very simple, 20 raised to the power of 140. Simple, really. Everyone completing high school math should be able to calculate this.


Great job in totally ignoring all the facts presented in this thread and showing yourself to be totally arrogant.

Awesome. You just demonstrated that you don't exist. If you don't understand that point then you clearly don't understand your own fallacious claims about probability. That's when it becomes "creationist maths".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Virtually every major phyla appeared during a 15 million year period known as the Cambrian explosion. Darwin was aware that this was impossible with his theory so he predicted we would find "missing links".

The phyla are just the branches that have persisted long-term. They're designated in retrospect. There are numerous plausible reasons why the Cambrian period was a major diversification, all of which are compatible with Darwin's theory. I'd like to see where Darwin said this was impossible with his theory rather than just unexplained at that time.

Instead we have found the time frame for the Cambrian explosion has shrunk.

On the contrary, there is good reason to think it was part of a longer extent of diversification.