Why are there girls in the world?

[Kaon]

Barbarian, regarding the probability of evolution:
We know the probability: 1.0.



Evolution isn't about self-assembly. However, we can directly observe self-assembly in cells. So a moot point.



Don't see why. It's not anywhere in the theory.



Denying an observed phenomenon seems more than merely wrong-headed.



And it observably functions in nature.



It's observably true.

Barbarian suggests:
We see similar events happening all around us. As Hall's bacteria, in less than a year, managed to make the exact dispersion/chemical potentials and instructions for a new enzyme system, this is the sort of thing biology is capable of doing. It stuns us, because we are used to the idea of "design" being required for this.

Engineers know better; they have begun using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too difficult for design. Would you like to learn about that?

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.



Two major errors there.
1. Darwin's theory doesn't predict common descent, although the evidence now demonstrates that common descent of all organisms on Earth is true.

2. Science never "proves" anything. It's inductive and merely accumulates enough evidence to make dissent unreasonable.



Sorry, I don't buy the "if we weren't there to see it, we can know nothing about it." Obviously, there's a huge amount of evidence available, and it tells us a great deal about that period. Would you like to learn about it?



You might, but scientists use evidence. Would you like to learn about the evidence for things that happened in the Jurassic?



Since living things already have sell-assembly, it's a moot point. Reality trumps anyone's reasoning. You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution, again. However, God agrees with abiogenesis, saying that the earth brought forth living things. Not part of evolutionary theory, though.

Ok, I am going to treat this socratically.

Were there any humans or recording devices/instruments to measure the dynamics and properties of the earth in the Triassic age?

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok, I am going to treat this socratically.

Were there any humans or recording devices/instruments to measure the dynamics and properties of the earth in the Triassic age?

So it's your argument that unless there were humans or recording devices/instruments to measure the dynamics and properties of the Earth in the Triassic age, we can't know anything about it?

That seems to be directly contradicted by the fact that we know many things about the Triassic age.

Could you explain why you think evidence from that time isn't a way to learn about it?

 

[Kaon]

So it's your argument that unless there were humans or recording devices/instruments to measure the dynamics and properties of the Earth in the Triassic age, we can't know anything about it?

That seems to be directly contradicted by the fact that we know many things about the Triassic age.

Could you explain why you think evidence from that time isn't a way to learn about it?

First, Were there any humans or recording devices/instruments to measure the dynamics and properties of the earth in the Triassic age?

 

[The Barbarian]

There certainly were natural recording devices, such as geological processes, chemistry, and so on. It is those "devices" that left data as to what went on.

Again, is it your argument that we cannot know about anything we weren't present to see when it happened?

Could you explain why you think evidence from that time isn't a way to learn about it?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?

Judging by the answers given by evolutionists, a better question to ask may be "Why is evolution considered a science, if evolutionists can just make up hypotheses out of their heads and present them as facts, without so much as a scrap of evidence to back their claims?"

 

[The Barbarian]

Judging by the answers given by evolutionists, a better question to ask may be "Why is evolution considered a science, if evolutionists can just make up hypotheses out of their heads and present them as facts, without so much as a scrap of evidence to back their claims?"

You've confused "hypothesis" (a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon) with "theory", (a well-tested idea supported by evidence).

Evolutionary theory is a theory because it's been repeatedly tested and confirmed. Would you like me to show you some of the evidence that confirms the predictions of evolutionary theory?

 

[Denadii]

If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?

We need something to laugh about? Men laugh at the things women do and women laugh at the men. Its a good arrangement.

 

[Kaon]

There certainly were natural recording devices, such as geological processes, chemistry, and so on. It is those "devices" that left data as to what went on.

Again, is it your argument that we cannot know about anything we weren't present to see when it happened?

Could you explain why you think evidence from that time isn't a way to learn about it?

Geological activity, radiation, chemistry, etc. are not constant processes, and dynamically change. So, it is absolutely impossible to ascertain anything.

Why?

Because in a dynamical system, each infinitesimal time interval matters uniquely. The transformations and drive of the function can (and usually are) be independent processs that undergo fundamental changes.

Unless I don't know something, it is dishonest and downright wrong to pretend that geology and chemistry, physics and astronomy have been CONSTANT for hundreds of millions of years. It isn't even constant on a time scale of tens of thousands of years.

Why is this a problem? Since fundamental constants like charge, mass and radioactivity are NOT constant, and actually depend on an energy scaling, this means that it is incredibly irresponsible to take something for which there is no way to prove - and especially so if you believe you can model a dynamical system by considering CONSTANT the many geological, astronomical and physical processes.

Now, that is just in terms of academics. The sense that God gives a gnat should have elucidated one in realizing that no one living today was alive 500,000 year ago, and there were no data collecting instrument to take hard, real-time data to compile, interpret and extrapolate from half a minon years later. NONE.

That is, unless there is something we don't know, and aren' being told. Do you think it would be accurate if someone made a scientific model of who you are, and who you would be after 2 minutes of knowing you? I know social media does this now, but when I was a young person it was asinine to believe you could definitively say something about a dynamic entity after knowing only 0.00005% of its evolution of events and formation.


Now, if you do believe there were instruments 500,000 years ago that have stayed constant for the entire time (and, did not mechanically, chemically, electrically, or radiologically break down,) do you believe that all of the constants and parameters 500,000 years ago 1) exist, 2) in their current values, 3) have remained constant, and 4) can be applied to the current biophysical modelling?

 

[The Barbarian]

Geological activity, radiation, chemistry, etc. are not constant processes, and dynamically change.

Wrong. Radiation, for example, remains constant over temperatures and energies found outside of stars. We see identical processes in ancient rocks that are observed going on right now.

Unless I don't know something, it is dishonest and downright wrong to pretend that geology and chemistry, physics and astronomy have been CONSTANT for hundreds of millions of years. It isn't even constant on a time scale of tens of thousands of years.

Sorry, you're just wrong about that. We see the same things happening in the geologic record as is going on today. And you see, if physical constants were significantly different millions of years ago, you wouldn't see what you see today. For example, if radioactive decay was much more rapid in the past, the radiation would have fried all living things.

Why is this a problem? Since fundamental constants like charge, mass and radioactivity are NOT constant, and actually depend on an energy scaling

See above. You've been misled. Demonstrably so.

In the past, physical constants had to be as they are today, or there would be no life on Earth.

If you have to depend on changes in physical constants for which you have no evidence to make your idea work, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?

 

[Kaon]

Wrong. Radiation, for example, remains constant over temperatures and energies found outside of stars. We see identical processes in ancient rocks that are observed going on right now.



Sorry, you're just wrong about that. We see the same things happening in the geologic record as is going on today. And you see, if physical constants were significantly different millions of years ago, you wouldn't see what you see today. For example, if radioactive decay was much more rapid in the past, the radiation would have fried all living things.



See above. You've been misled. Demonstrably so.

In the past, physical constants had to be as they are today, or there would be no life on Earth.

If you have to depend on changes in physical constants for which you have no evidence to make your idea work, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?

Do you know what what coupling constants are?

They are not actually constant, and depend on an energy scaling. If you understand what that means, you should know why it is asinine to believe any "constant" has remained the same value over 500,000 years, or at all - especially given the conditions then were not the same in any previous time period: not terrestrially, or cosmically. The entire earth and cosmos is a dynamical system.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you know what what coupling constants are?

Show me how coupling constants demonstrate that radioactive decay was significantly different in the past. And explain how living things survived the huge increase in ionized radiation thereby.

They are not actually constant, and depend on an energy scaling. If you understand what that means, you should know why it is asinine to believe any "constant" has remained the same value over 500,000 years, or at all

I'm wondering if you actually realize what coupling constants are. Standard model coupling constants can be used to derive decay rates, and an ancient natural reactor has allowed physicists to evaluate your hypothesis:
Physical Review
Natural nuclear reactor at Oklo and variation of fundamental constants: Computation of neutronics of a fresh core
Yu. V. Petrov, A. I. Nazarov, M. S. Onegin, V. Yu. Petrov, and E. G. Sakhnovsky
Phys. Rev. C 74, 064610 – Published 14 December 2006

The conclusion did not fit your hypothesis.

especially given the conditions then were not the same in any previous time period:

Show me how they were different in the past, and how this affected "coupling constants." And how living things managed to exist in such conditions.

 

[Kaon]

Show me how coupling constants demonstrate that radioactive decay was significantly different in the past. And explain how living things survived the huge increase in ionized radiation thereby.



I'm wondering if you actually realize what coupling constants are.



Show me how they were different in the past, and how this affected "coupling constants." And how living things managed to exist in such conditions.

So you don't know what coupling constants are, and why their variability matters when determining fundamental constants like charge and mass.

Because, if you did you wouldn't ask me to show you; this is an exercise in quantum field theory, and is not even that exciting (but has serious implications for things that assume constants are constants over a long time interval.)

Pick up a field theory book (I recommend Woit,) and follow the TEXT covering with gauges and lie groups. Then, you should see this exact question as either an exercise, or a problem. It may even be covered in the TEXT depending on what author you choose.

 

[The Barbarian]

So you don't know what coupling constants are

I'm pretty sure now, that you don't know what they are.

and why their variability matters when determining fundamental constants like charge and mass.

I just noted that a peer-reviewed physical article disagrees with your claim. That being so, I'm interested in why your analysis is different. But since you've declined to do so, I suspect you don't really know.

 

[Kaon]

I'm pretty sure now, that you don't know what they are.



I just noted that a peer-reviewed physical article disagrees with your claim. That being so, I'm interested in why your analysis is different. But since you've declined to do so, I suspect you don't really know.

I'm sure you did; most people resonate with something that fits their viewpoints.

However, this is a textbook quantum field theory concept. You telling me that I don't know what I am talking about doesn't change quantum field theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

However, this is a textbook quantum field theory concept. You telling me that I don't know what I am talking about doesn't change quantum field theory.

I'm just pointing out that the peer-reviewed physics literature doesn't agree with you. So there is that.

 

[Kaon]

I'm just pointing out that the peer-reviewed physics literature doesn't agree with you. So there is that.

That's fine; that literature exists all over Springer and APS for any field of physics. It doesn't necessarily negate anything; in fact, non-relativistic QM and quantum field theory don't mix, because field theory accounts for the disconnect between special relativity and quantum mechanics.

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the coupling constants (like mass, charge, etc.) are constant.

In quantum field theory, the coupling constants are not constant.

Both are "correct" according to their disciplines; it is like the Standard Model saying that the neutrino has zero mass when it actually mixes - I gave a seminar on neutrino mixing and flavor oscillation (reviewed by my department,) and the Standard Model still had the mass of the neutrino at zero. A paper written that postulated the neutrino as massless would have been peer-reviewed and acceptable at that time, despite mathematical evidence suggesting the contrary.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK, so there's disagreement among physicists about your claims. Now we're back to the question. What mechanisms necessary for evolution are prohibited by physics?

Be specific, and show us.

 

[Kaon]

OK, so there's disagreement among physicists about your claims. Now we're back to the question. What mechanisms necessary for evolution are prohibited by physics?

Be specific, and show us.

The physics behind evolution was never my argument.

Edit: technically, QM and QFT are separate branches, and QFT reconciles SR with QM.

 

[The Barbarian]

So is there a point in any of that?

 

[sfs]

They are not actually constant, and depend on an energy scaling. If you understand what that means, you should know why it is asinine to believe any "constant" has remained the same value over 500,000 years, or at all - especially given the conditions then were not the same in any previous time period: not terrestrially, or cosmically. The entire earth and cosmos is a dynamical system.

I understand what running coupling constants are and I have to say that your argument here is a bunch of nonsense. Yes, constants have different values at different energies. No, the energy scale relevant to the history of the earth for the past 500,000 years has not changed enough to have any effect on, well, anything relevant to any discussion here.