Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.
Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.
However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 17 2008, 05:16 PM)
Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.
Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.
However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.
Yeah, well, the theory o gravity must be wrong cause it don't account fer DNA.
Dear god, yer dumb, son...
Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.
However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.
Yeah, well, the theory o gravity must be wrong cause it don't account fer DNA.
Dear god, yer dumb, son...
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 17 2008, 01:16 PM)
When one surveys the natural world...
Found your observer, right there.
You. Me. All of us.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We see the world as beautiful because of how we have evolved. Creatures on some other world that evolved completely differently might not see our world as beautiful - does this make our world a junk yard? The world is not beautiful until we see it as such.
Found your observer, right there.
You. Me. All of us.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We see the world as beautiful because of how we have evolved. Creatures on some other world that evolved completely differently might not see our world as beautiful - does this make our world a junk yard? The world is not beautiful until we see it as such.
Evolution is not a theory, it is a description of the process of changing motions of what exists. Motional changes of what exists are not in doubt, and neither do they need a theory. These changes are observed and lived by all things including Humans, and the word 'evolution' describes an accumulating effect produced by many millions of years of this same process of change that we observe all the time.
Thus, to say that 'evolution lacks an observer' is to effectively pronounce that you do not exist, seeing as you ARE the observer.
g.
Thus, to say that 'evolution lacks an observer' is to effectively pronounce that you do not exist, seeing as you ARE the observer.
g.
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jun 17 2008, 01:14 PM)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We see the world as beautiful because of how we have evolved. Creatures on some other world that evolved completely differently might not see our world as beautiful - does this make our world a junk yard? The world is not beautiful until we see it as such.
Wow! I started to respond to this thread and then got sidetracked... Decided to click refresh to see if anyone else had responded.
Lo and behold, you typed my response. Worded it differently, but the exact same idea.
Wow! I started to respond to this thread and then got sidetracked... Decided to click refresh to see if anyone else had responded.
Lo and behold, you typed my response. Worded it differently, but the exact same idea.
Here is the idea:
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 17 2008, 08:29 PM)
Here is the idea:
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
So you just don't like the word 'chance', then?
g.
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
So you just don't like the word 'chance', then?
g.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2008, 03:29 AM)
Here is the idea:
Ah, the irony.
Ah, the irony.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution.
Yes, you do, otherwise you wouldn't be making these posts. Here's the proof, right in your own words:
Yes, you do, otherwise you wouldn't be making these posts. Here's the proof, right in your own words:
QUOTE (no1nose+)
But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events.
So you're suggesting that they are deliberate and purposeful? That the DNA somehow chose to mutate? For sure, certain organisms exist because of deliberate and purposeful changes to their DNA, we call then genetically engineered organisms.
So you're suggesting that they are deliberate and purposeful? That the DNA somehow chose to mutate? For sure, certain organisms exist because of deliberate and purposeful changes to their DNA, we call then genetically engineered organisms.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined.
The observer is the organism itself. Am I alive? Am I well suited to my environment? Can I reproduce? Am I better at it than my peers?
Just because Man wasn't around to see the mutations doesn't mean there wasn't an observer. Also, our ability to study the fossil record and the DNA evidence makes us an observer after the fact.
You sound like a fanatic or at least someone with a closed mind. Much of what you wrote was flying off the handle.
This is just nonsense...
This is jibberish...
I cannot even begin to explain science to you, since your statement was nonsensical.
This is just nonsense...
This is jibberish...
I cannot even begin to explain science to you, since your statement was nonsensical.
Since PuckSR, a.k.a. "I am God", has said it I guess it must be true.
A couple of years ago I read of a disease causing strain of bacteria that had arrived in two South American countries at the same time. One country had treated water and in a short time the strain of the bacteria became far less virulent and people who contracted the disease only became mildly ill. In the country with untreated water the same strain of bacteria remained virulent and was the cause of a number of deaths. It appears that in this case that random mutation could not explain these changes and something else was going on.
How do you figure that one *****?
The fact that this deadly disease suddenly "exist" is proof of evolution.
The fact that treatment could reduce the severity of bacteria isn't exactly surprising.
The ability for bacteria to survive certain chemicals is much rarer(and mutually more complex) than others.
The mutations necessary to allow a bacteria to survive on a petri dish are rather simple.
The mutations necessary to allow a bacteria to survive chlorine are far more complex.
Still, either you are being purposefully misleading or you don't even have a basic grade school grasp of evolutionary theory.
This is even more silly. At the end of the day the molecules are changed at the atomic level which will involve quantum changes.
This is even more silly. At the end of the day the molecules are changed at the atomic level which will involve quantum changes.
How do you figure that one *****?
You seem to think that any changes in life prove evolution!
Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.
I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here. If the changes are not random then the Theory of Evolution is invalid.
This is the original article http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm
This cannot happen by random mutations and without "random mutations" its not really evolution. It is? The "observer" at the quantum level is the one who determines the outcome. Rather than chance mutations the changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. And that aint evolution.
The observer is the organism itself. Am I alive? Am I well suited to my environment? Can I reproduce? Am I better at it than my peers?
Just because Man wasn't around to see the mutations doesn't mean there wasn't an observer. Also, our ability to study the fossil record and the DNA evidence makes us an observer after the fact.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
So... you propose that until Man evolved, the universe was chaos, and it's only our arrival and our ability to observe that caused the universe to coalesce into the state we see today, and somehow you like this idea better?
Realistically, it doesn't even matter. We are here, we have observed, and it is what it is. Mutations occur randomly, even if no one notices until much later. Your "idea" has absolutely zero impact on the Theory of Evolution.
So... you propose that until Man evolved, the universe was chaos, and it's only our arrival and our ability to observe that caused the universe to coalesce into the state we see today, and somehow you like this idea better?
Realistically, it doesn't even matter. We are here, we have observed, and it is what it is. Mutations occur randomly, even if no one notices until much later. Your "idea" has absolutely zero impact on the Theory of Evolution.
QUOTE
Your "idea" has absolutely zero impact on the Theory of Evolution
You sound like a fanatic or at least someone with a closed mind. Much of what you wrote was flying off the handle.
no1nose, "Everyone knows" that evolution occurred and is fact, or they are ignorant and choose to hide their head in the sand. 
The impartial observer is the clear fossil record and any attempt to deny that is pure folly. Another impartial observer is frozen in the genetic trail of life's development on this earth, and the various genome projects are working to decipher that. Read a book and learn some science! 
No wonder all your feedback is negative! What a record! Are you proud of that? Who has a closed mind? ((
))
The impartial observer is the clear fossil record and any attempt to deny that is pure folly. Another impartial observer is frozen in the genetic trail of life's development on this earth, and the various genome projects are working to decipher that. Read a book and learn some science! No wonder all your feedback is negative! What a record! Are you proud of that? Who has a closed mind? (())
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 17 2008, 06:16 PM)
If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard.
They aren't completely random though, they follow specific rules and behaviour, some of which we understand.
After all, water molecules condense down to form snow flakes in a 'random' manner but because there's rules to the randomness you get all the incredible patterns of snow flakes. It doesn't need an observer, it just needs particular rules. Which it has.
/edit
And no1nose, I asked you before but you never replied. Do you actually know any relativity and quantum mechanics? Why is it that most people who do know relativity and quantum mechanics also tend to be atheist and consider the theory of evolution good?
They aren't completely random though, they follow specific rules and behaviour, some of which we understand.
After all, water molecules condense down to form snow flakes in a 'random' manner but because there's rules to the randomness you get all the incredible patterns of snow flakes. It doesn't need an observer, it just needs particular rules. Which it has.
/edit
And no1nose, I asked you before but you never replied. Do you actually know any relativity and quantum mechanics? Why is it that most people who do know relativity and quantum mechanics also tend to be atheist and consider the theory of evolution good?
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 23 2008, 02:44 AM)
You sound like a fanatic or at least someone with a closed mind. Much of what you wrote was flying off the handle.
Actually, if you read some of my posts on here, I probably have one of the more open minds on this forum. I'm willing to look at any valid evidence or argument against evolution, and consider it on its merits. I've even expressed a willingness to consider that o.9r might not be equal to 1!
I've looked at your suggestion and found it to be without merit. Your proposal, that there is no observer, is demonstrably false.
Actually, if you read some of my posts on here, I probably have one of the more open minds on this forum. I'm willing to look at any valid evidence or argument against evolution, and consider it on its merits. I've even expressed a willingness to consider that o.9r might not be equal to 1!
I've looked at your suggestion and found it to be without merit. Your proposal, that there is no observer, is demonstrably false.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 18 2008, 07:29 AM)
Here is the idea:
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
Mutations occur at the molecular level not at the QM level.
And QM is random.
I think you have a problem with Evolution and have looked for reasons to support that. AFAIK you totally misunderstand the role of the observer.
With radio active decay for instance and observer doesn't choose which atom will decay.
I don’t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.
Mutations occur at the molecular level not at the QM level.
And QM is random.
I think you have a problem with Evolution and have looked for reasons to support that. AFAIK you totally misunderstand the role of the observer.
With radio active decay for instance and observer doesn't choose which atom will decay.
Quantum mechanics do not work that way.
An "observer" could simply be another particle which it is influenced by.
And while QM may be random, it's effect on the macroscopic universe is not neccesarily random. Look at dice rolls for example, they're random, but there is a pattern to their randomness.
Now, I don't like the thought of a universe based on randomness either. I do astronomy, and there's very little 'randomness' to see up there. But, unfortunately, the universe doesn't care much about what I want.
An "observer" could simply be another particle which it is influenced by.
And while QM may be random, it's effect on the macroscopic universe is not neccesarily random. Look at dice rolls for example, they're random, but there is a pattern to their randomness.
Now, I don't like the thought of a universe based on randomness either. I do astronomy, and there's very little 'randomness' to see up there. But, unfortunately, the universe doesn't care much about what I want.
QUOTE (Alcari+Jun 23 2008, 05:56 AM)
Quantum mechanics do not work that way.
An "observer" could simply be another particle which it is influenced by.
And while QM may be random, it's effect on the macroscopic universe is not neccesarily random. Look at dice rolls for example, they're random, but there is a pattern to their randomness.
Now, I don't like the thought of a universe based on randomness either. I do astronomy, and there's very little 'randomness' to see up there. But, unfortunately, the universe doesn't care much about what I want.
Good answer!
It is another case of being afraid of words, instead of finding out their true meanings. I currently understand there to be a kind of 'random~harmony' to existence. That seems like a paradox or oxymoron, but is it?
I think there is a harmonic structure to what exists, at the fundamental level, which is why we observe it to interconnected, but it just appears 'random' to us on the superficial (physical) level which we currently understand it at.
g.
An "observer" could simply be another particle which it is influenced by.
And while QM may be random, it's effect on the macroscopic universe is not neccesarily random. Look at dice rolls for example, they're random, but there is a pattern to their randomness.
Now, I don't like the thought of a universe based on randomness either. I do astronomy, and there's very little 'randomness' to see up there. But, unfortunately, the universe doesn't care much about what I want.
Good answer!
It is another case of being afraid of words, instead of finding out their true meanings. I currently understand there to be a kind of 'random~harmony' to existence. That seems like a paradox or oxymoron, but is it?
I think there is a harmonic structure to what exists, at the fundamental level, which is why we observe it to interconnected, but it just appears 'random' to us on the superficial (physical) level which we currently understand it at.
g.
QUOTE
Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.
Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.
However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.
Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.
However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.
This is just nonsense...
This is jibberish...
I cannot even begin to explain science to you, since your statement was nonsensical.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 24 2008, 01:41 AM)
This is just nonsense...
This is jibberish...
I cannot even begin to explain science to you, since your statement was nonsensical.
Since PuckSR, a.k.a. "I am God", has said it I guess it must be true.
A couple of years ago I read of a disease causing strain of bacteria that had arrived in two South American countries at the same time. One country had treated water and in a short time the strain of the bacteria became far less virulent and people who contracted the disease only became mildly ill. In the country with untreated water the same strain of bacteria remained virulent and was the cause of a number of deaths. It appears that in this case that random mutation could not explain these changes and something else was going on.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 24 2008, 09:14 PM)
Since PuckSR, a.k.a. "I am God", has said it I guess it must be true.
As a matter o fact, it is!
Evolution don't take place at the quantum level. It takes place on a scale o molecules, which are big clumps o atoms, not individual particles. What you said is like sayin "planetary motion takes place at the 1-meter level."
Besides which, it don't matter. An observer can be a photon. Or an electron. Or a meson. Or a strange quark. Or a duck. Or yer elbow when it whacks the table an causes all them particles in the table to be at specific locations fer that moment.
Ya don't know squat about science, numnuts.
As a matter o fact, it is!
Evolution don't take place at the quantum level. It takes place on a scale o molecules, which are big clumps o atoms, not individual particles. What you said is like sayin "planetary motion takes place at the 1-meter level."
Besides which, it don't matter. An observer can be a photon. Or an electron. Or a meson. Or a strange quark. Or a duck. Or yer elbow when it whacks the table an causes all them particles in the table to be at specific locations fer that moment.
Ya don't know squat about science, numnuts.
QUOTE
A couple of years ago I read of a disease causing strain of bacteria that had arrived in two South American countries at the same time. One country had treated water and in a short time the strain of the bacteria became far less virulent and people who contracted the disease only became mildly ill. In the country with untreated water the same strain of bacteria remained virulent and was the cause of a number of deaths. It appears that in this case that random mutation could not explain these changes and something else was going on.
How do you figure that one *****?
The fact that this deadly disease suddenly "exist" is proof of evolution.
The fact that treatment could reduce the severity of bacteria isn't exactly surprising.
The ability for bacteria to survive certain chemicals is much rarer(and mutually more complex) than others.
The mutations necessary to allow a bacteria to survive on a petri dish are rather simple.
The mutations necessary to allow a bacteria to survive chlorine are far more complex.
Still, either you are being purposefully misleading or you don't even have a basic grade school grasp of evolutionary theory.
QUOTE
Evolution don't take place at the quantum level. It takes place on a scale o molecules, which are big clumps o atoms, not individual particles. What you said is like sayin "planetary motion takes place at the 1-meter level."
Besides which, it don't matter. An observer can be a photon. Or an electron. Or a meson. Or a strange quark. Or a duck. Or yer elbow when it whacks the table an causes all them particles in the table to be at specific locations fer that moment.
Ya don't know squat about science, numnuts.
Besides which, it don't matter. An observer can be a photon. Or an electron. Or a meson. Or a strange quark. Or a duck. Or yer elbow when it whacks the table an causes all them particles in the table to be at specific locations fer that moment.
Ya don't know squat about science, numnuts.
This is even more silly. At the end of the day the molecules are changed at the atomic level which will involve quantum changes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolution don't take place at the quantum level. It takes place on a scale o molecules, which are big clumps o atoms, not individual particles. What you said is like sayin "planetary motion takes place at the 1-meter level." Besides which, it don't matter. An observer can be a photon. Or an electron. Or a meson. Or a strange quark. Or a duck. Or yer elbow when it whacks the table an causes all them particles in the table to be at specific locations fer that moment. Ya don't know squat about science, numnuts. |
This is even more silly. At the end of the day the molecules are changed at the atomic level which will involve quantum changes.
How do you figure that one *****?
You seem to think that any changes in life prove evolution!
Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.
I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here. If the changes are not random then the Theory of Evolution is invalid.
This is the original article http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm
no1nose, From the very source you just listed (did you actually read it?) comes PROOF of observable evolution! 
EVOLUTION DOES NOT LACK AN OBSERVER! 
QUOTE
Ewald's paper outlining his speculations about diarrhea was published in 1980, in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. By then Ewald was on his way to becoming the Darwin of the microworld.
"Ironically," he says, "natural selection was first recognized as operating in large organisms, and ignored in the very organisms in which it is especially powerful -- the microorganisms that cause disease. The time scale is so much shorter and the selective pressures so much more intense. You can get evolutionary change in disease organisms in months or weeks. In something like zebras you'd have to wait many centuries to see it."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/germs.htm (Emphasis mine.)"Ironically," he says, "natural selection was first recognized as operating in large organisms, and ignored in the very organisms in which it is especially powerful -- the microorganisms that cause disease. The time scale is so much shorter and the selective pressures so much more intense. You can get evolutionary change in disease organisms in months or weeks. In something like zebras you'd have to wait many centuries to see it."
EVOLUTION DOES NOT LACK AN OBSERVER!
QUOTE
You can get evolutionary change in disease organisms in months or weeks
This cannot happen by random mutations and without "random mutations" its not really evolution. It is? The "observer" at the quantum level is the one who determines the outcome. Rather than chance mutations the changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. And that aint evolution.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 25 2008, 02:21 AM)
This is even more silly. At the end of the day the molecules are changed at the atomic level which will involve quantum changes.
Is that it? "that is even more silly..."
Ok then, give me a SOURCE to show that quantum effects preclude macroscopic (or even microscopic-but-not-quite-quantum-scale) effects from happenin.
At the end o the day, yer *** is not bein observed by anyone, yet it fails to fall through yer chair. Odd, considerin that it all comes down to particles interactin via their electromagnetic fields. On the quantum level.
All yer doin here is displayin a lack o understandin about both biology an physics.
Nope! Jes evidences it.
Nope! Jes evidences it.
Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.
That's describin evolution, numnuts.
Now we get to the crux o the matter... Ya don't believe. So here's a question for ya...
I don't believe in Corpse Flowers. Does that make em any less real?
Now we get to the crux o the matter... Ya don't believe. So here's a question for ya...
I don't believe in Corpse Flowers. Does that make em any less real?
This cannot happen by random mutations and without "random mutations" its not really evolution. It is?
Prove it. Give some evidence that chance mutations can't produce beneficial changes.
Is that it? "that is even more silly..."
Ok then, give me a SOURCE to show that quantum effects preclude macroscopic (or even microscopic-but-not-quite-quantum-scale) effects from happenin.
At the end o the day, yer *** is not bein observed by anyone, yet it fails to fall through yer chair. Odd, considerin that it all comes down to particles interactin via their electromagnetic fields. On the quantum level.
All yer doin here is displayin a lack o understandin about both biology an physics.
QUOTE
You seem to think that any changes in life prove evolution!
Nope! Jes evidences it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You seem to think that any changes in life prove evolution! |
Nope! Jes evidences it.
Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy. Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.
That's describin evolution, numnuts.
QUOTE
I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here.
Now we get to the crux o the matter... Ya don't believe. So here's a question for ya...
I don't believe in Corpse Flowers. Does that make em any less real?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here. |
Now we get to the crux o the matter... Ya don't believe. So here's a question for ya...
I don't believe in Corpse Flowers. Does that make em any less real?
This cannot happen by random mutations and without "random mutations" its not really evolution. It is?
Prove it. Give some evidence that chance mutations can't produce beneficial changes.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
This is even more silly. At the end of the day the molecules are changed at the atomic level which will involve quantum changes.
Nonsense. The molecule itself is not changed, but the configuration of molecules is. The changes ARE NOT at the atomic level!
Nonsense. The molecule itself is not changed, but the configuration of molecules is. The changes ARE NOT at the atomic level!
QUOTE (no1nose+)
You seem to think that any changes in life prove evolution!
Yes! That's exactly what evolution is! Descent with modification!
Yes! That's exactly what evolution is! Descent with modification!
QUOTE (no1nose+)
Becoming less lethal was a survival strategy.
So, now you're arguing Lamarkian evolution?
So, now you're arguing Lamarkian evolution?
QUOTE (no1nose+)
Treating the water greatly reduced the number of disease organisms in the drinking water. Become less lethal meant keeping the host alive and the release of more disease organisms back into the water supply.
Treating the water killed the bacteria most susceptible to the treatment. The surviving bacteria happened to be less lethal. Survival of the fittest means suitability for the environment (the treated water) not survival of the most lethal.
Treating the water killed the bacteria most susceptible to the treatment. The surviving bacteria happened to be less lethal. Survival of the fittest means suitability for the environment (the treated water) not survival of the most lethal.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
I don’t believe that chance mutations can explain what happened here. If the changes are not random then the Theory of Evolution is invalid.
The mutation that made the bacteria less susceptible to the treatment and less lethal was most definitely random, whether you believe it or not! The natural selection that occurred was most definitely not random, but that is the entire point! Mutations are random, natural selection is not!
The mutation that made the bacteria less susceptible to the treatment and less lethal was most definitely random, whether you believe it or not! The natural selection that occurred was most definitely not random, but that is the entire point! Mutations are random, natural selection is not!
QUOTE (no1nose+)
This cannot happen by random mutations and without "random mutations" its not really evolution. It is?
And where in hell did you get this idea that random mutations must come into play for it to "really be" evolution? Evolution simply means descent with modification. This means generation n+1 will exhibit differences from generation n, nothing more. Even so, why do you insist that this is a lack of random mutations? Your suggestion that the change was a "survival strategy" is laughable, as Lamarkian evolution has been disproven.
What in the world are you talking about? Please explain.
And where in hell did you get this idea that random mutations must come into play for it to "really be" evolution? Evolution simply means descent with modification. This means generation n+1 will exhibit differences from generation n, nothing more. Even so, why do you insist that this is a lack of random mutations? Your suggestion that the change was a "survival strategy" is laughable, as Lamarkian evolution has been disproven.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
The "observer" at the quantum level is the one who determines the outcome. Rather than chance mutations the changes in life are better described by "observer" determined outcomes at the quantum level. And that aint evolution.
The changes do not occur at the quantum level, so no quantum observer is necessary. The changes occur at a molecular level, and the observer is the organism itself. The mutations are random, and are non-randomly selected for according to the organism's fitness for its environment and its ability to reproduce. And yes, that IS evolution, plain and simple.
The changes do not occur at the quantum level, so no quantum observer is necessary. The changes occur at a molecular level, and the observer is the organism itself. The mutations are random, and are non-randomly selected for according to the organism's fitness for its environment and its ability to reproduce. And yes, that IS evolution, plain and simple.
I thought God observed everything. 
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 25 2008, 04:39 AM)
I thought God observed everything.
In that case, 'god' would BE 'observation' as well.
g.
In that case, 'god' would BE 'observation' as well.
g.
QUOTE
You can observe a lot by just watching.
- Yogi Berra
- Yogi Berra
Was he smarter than the average Berra, do you think? Or just more curious?
g.
g.
QUOTE
Nonsense. The molecule itself is not changed, but the configuration of molecules is. The changes ARE NOT at the atomic level
!What in the world are you talking about? Please explain.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 25 2008, 05:49 PM)
What in the world are you talking about? Please explain.
Simple biology.
Simple biology.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 25 2008, 01:49 PM)
!
What in the world are you talking about? Please explain.
What in the world are you talking about? Please explain.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule+)
a molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by very strong chemical bonds.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound+)
An organic compound is any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid+)
...an amino acid is a molecule...
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein+)
Proteins are large organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain...
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide+)
Nucleotides are organic compounds...
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA+)
Chemically, DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds.
...
Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases.
...
Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome+)
Chromosomes are organized structures of DNA and proteins that are found in cells.
Yes, but for a molecule to change its structure there must be changes at the atomic level and that is quantum.
Yes, but for a molecule to change its structure there must be changes at the atomic level and that is quantum.
The molecule isn't changing its structure, the nucleotide sequence is changing its order.
The same molecules, or types of molecules, are there, they are just in a different order. There is no change at the atomic level.
But let's take this further. Let's say for the sake of example that you're right that mutations happen at the atomic level. These changes aren't quantum events, and even if they are, there is still an observer. Example: a nuclear reactor. Uranium-235 or plutonium-239 goes in, and uranium-234, plutonium-238, and some others, come out. This is an atomic change. But is it a quantum change? No, because we are there to observe it, we benefit from the effects of the change. So it would be if genetic mutation truly happened at the quantum level - the organism itself is there to observe the effects of the mutation.
Bonds are broken and new bonds are made this is atomic changes.
Bonds are broken and new bonds are made this is atomic changes.
But let's take this further. Let's say for the sake of example that you're right that mutations happen at the atomic level. These changes aren't quantum events, and even if they are, there is still an observer. Example: a nuclear reactor. Uranium-235 or plutonium-239 goes in, and uranium-234, plutonium-238, and some others, come out. This is an atomic change. But is it a quantum change? No, because we are there to observe it, we benefit from the effects of the change. So it would be if genetic mutation truly happened at the quantum level - the organism itself is there to observe the effects of the mutation.
Maybe read a book on quantum physics?
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation+)
mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism.
Simply put, mutations occur due to changes in the order of molecules in the DNA chain, not due to quantum level changes in the atoms in the molecules of the DNA chain.
Simply put, mutations occur due to changes in the order of molecules in the DNA chain, not due to quantum level changes in the atoms in the molecules of the DNA chain.
QUOTE
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule)
a molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by very strong chemical bonds.
a molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by very strong chemical bonds.
Yes, but for a molecule to change its structure there must be changes at the atomic level and that is quantum.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 25 2008, 04:57 PM)
Yes, but for a molecule to change its structure there must be changes at the atomic level and that is quantum.
The molecule isn't changing its structure, the nucleotide sequence is changing its order.
The same molecules, or types of molecules, are there, they are just in a different order. There is no change at the atomic level.
But let's take this further. Let's say for the sake of example that you're right that mutations happen at the atomic level. These changes aren't quantum events, and even if they are, there is still an observer. Example: a nuclear reactor. Uranium-235 or plutonium-239 goes in, and uranium-234, plutonium-238, and some others, come out. This is an atomic change. But is it a quantum change? No, because we are there to observe it, we benefit from the effects of the change. So it would be if genetic mutation truly happened at the quantum level - the organism itself is there to observe the effects of the mutation.
QUOTE
The molecule isn't changing its structure, the nucleotide sequence is changing its order.
Bonds are broken and new bonds are made this is atomic changes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The molecule isn't changing its structure, the nucleotide sequence is changing its order. |
Bonds are broken and new bonds are made this is atomic changes.
But let's take this further. Let's say for the sake of example that you're right that mutations happen at the atomic level. These changes aren't quantum events, and even if they are, there is still an observer. Example: a nuclear reactor. Uranium-235 or plutonium-239 goes in, and uranium-234, plutonium-238, and some others, come out. This is an atomic change. But is it a quantum change? No, because we are there to observe it, we benefit from the effects of the change. So it would be if genetic mutation truly happened at the quantum level - the organism itself is there to observe the effects of the mutation.
Maybe read a book on quantum physics?
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 25 2008, 10:17 PM)
Maybe read a book on quantum physics?
Speaking of which :
Speaking of which :
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 23 2008, 09:42 AM)
And no1nose, I asked you before but you never replied. Do you actually know any relativity and quantum mechanics? Why is it that most people who do know relativity and quantum mechanics also tend to be atheist and consider the theory of evolution good?
no1nose...
You are about as sharp as a bowling ball aren't you?
You think genetic resequencing involves forming altering molecules?
I don't even care to help you out.
I will always help someone who is confused. I think it is the kind thing to do. You are willfully ignorant.
Look, if you are just going to make stuff up, why should we listen to you?
You are about as sharp as a bowling ball aren't you?
You think genetic resequencing involves forming altering molecules?
I don't even care to help you out.
I will always help someone who is confused. I think it is the kind thing to do. You are willfully ignorant.
Look, if you are just going to make stuff up, why should we listen to you?
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 25 2008, 05:17 PM)
Bonds are broken and new bonds are made this is atomic changes.
Irrelevant, there is still an observer, the organism.
Irrelevant, there is still an observer, the organism.
QUOTE (no1nose+)
Maybe read a book on quantum physics?
I will if you will...
I will if you will...
Apparently no1nose is having trouble responding to my posts because McAfee blocks what I post. I didn't know McAfee did a "Christian Fundamentalist" version, so the evil science can't get you!
If relativity and quantum mechanics makes people into atheists then I guess relativity and quantum mechanics is your new god?
Where have all the 'crackpot-busters' suddenly disappeared to?
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 26 2008, 09:50 AM)
Where have all the 'crackpot-busters' suddenly disappeared to?
g.
Well, were having a wee little break up in glasgow. Quite a nice place.
Well, its around 10:00 in the mornin right bout now.
The house is clean, the tea's on the boil, and the scons are ALMOST ready.
The pasture side looks marvelous from upstairs. So blue, so green.
Well, care for a cup of twinings?
Sandra 
g.
Well, were having a wee little break up in glasgow. Quite a nice place.
Well, its around 10:00 in the mornin right bout now.
The house is clean, the tea's on the boil, and the scons are ALMOST ready.
The pasture side looks marvelous from upstairs. So blue, so green.
Well, care for a cup of twinings?
Sandra
QUOTE (Sandra doliak+Jun 25 2008, 10:54 PM)
Well, were having a wee little break up in glasgow. Quite a nice place.
Well, its around 10:00 in the mornin right bout now.
The house is clean, the tea's on the boil, and the scons are ALMOST ready.
The pasture side looks marvelous from upstairs. So blue, so green.
Well, care for a cup of twinings?
Sandra
Thanks for the invite, but I drink my own urine in the mornings.
g.
Well, its around 10:00 in the mornin right bout now.
The house is clean, the tea's on the boil, and the scons are ALMOST ready.
The pasture side looks marvelous from upstairs. So blue, so green.
Well, care for a cup of twinings?
Sandra
Thanks for the invite, but I drink my own urine in the mornings.
g.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 26 2008, 12:32 AM)
If relativity and quantum mechanics makes people into atheists then I guess relativity and quantum mechanics is your new god?
When I quit smoking I didn't replace it with anything.
When I quit smoking I didn't replace it with anything.
Do unobserved stars burn?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.