Denial of evolution III

[Billy T]

... We haven't been around long enough to really prove evolution exists. That's just plain and simple. ...

That is just ignorant nonsense, plain and simple. For example in 20 years, in a control experiment with fish evolution was demonstrated - See footnote of post here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2604858&postcount=527

With tiny organisms, you can show evolution in 20 hours - Do you understand why when taking an anti-biotic for bacterial infection you are told to keep taking it (usually for 10 days) even 6 or so days after you are no longer ill?

There are thousands of natural example of evolution (not intended controlled experiments, but accidental environmental changes that caused a creature to evolve - be selected for the new environment.)

One of the more famous is a white moth that was very common in London before Watt invented the coal fired steam engine and London's population with coal fired stoves grew large.* The level of soot pollution in London be became very high -Washing could not be hung out to dry as it would be black in a few hours, etc.

Well in a decade or so that white moth evolved to be a black or dark gray moth. The white ones, selected against, completely disappeared - presumably they were too easy for moth eating birds to spot on the soot cover trunks of trees and elsewhere (every thing was covered with soot). After about a hundred years of living with unimaginable air pollution, London cleaned up its act and then the moths turned white again in a few decades.

If you want an example of the evolution of an entirely new species (can not produce fertile eggs when cross breed) read post 499, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2570421&postcount=499

This case is especially interesting as normally when one species evolves into another, very few, if any of the intermediate forms have left fossil remains, so anti-evolution fools try to use this fact to discredit evolution. In this case ALL of the intermediate forms still exist! - That is because they are separated in space, not only time. It no doubt did take 10s of thousands of years for them to become separate species at the two ends of their range.

For the most rapid (~8000 years) evolution case known of an advanced mammal speces, See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2205207&postcount=83

This is an exceptional case, well studied with DNA samples and confirmed as a new species. (No inbreeding possible with the species of guinea pigs the préa guinea pigs evolved from.) This rapid evolution occurred as for ~8000 years the tiny island where the préa lived had the population on the edge of extinction. (Island's grass only supports about 40 individuals now, and less when they were first there as normal size guinea pigs.) Lots of inbreeding surely helped speed the evolution as any small advantage (such a being smaller and needing less food) exploded in the tiny population's gene pool to be come dominate. Read post 83 (of above link) and some other discussion posts. - You don't need to remain hopeless ignorant about evolution.

------------
*The steam engine, crude as it was, permitted water to be pumped from the coal mines. - That greatly expanded coal production. Most homes were wood heated before they switched to coal. As the population of London grew there was not enough nearby wood for all so coal stoves were rapidly adopted. Ben Franklin made an efficient design, which is still called the "Franklin Stove."

 

[Kajalamorth]

We actually do have more evidence of aliens than evolution. We haven't been around long enough to really prove evolution exists. That's just plain and simple. As for aliens, there are many inconsistencies in the past and too many unexplained phenomena that make no sense about our history. Aliens really seem like a viable avenue for answers. Plus, there are always the unexplained to lean back on.

The aliens you are talking about is created by pseudoscientist and unexplained phenomena is not evidence. Evidence explains something. How can you explain something with something unexplainable.

Also. The modern human that we know now is around 200 000 years old. Of course that was in very early human history. But it is long enough to see thousands of species come and go. Even evolve. We have evidence of fish evolving into amphibians. Sarcopterygii

We have found fossils showing the steps of evolution. The only reason why creationist don't believe is because they are incapable of having a realistic debate.

 

[GeoffP]

I'd like to see that i am joseph fellow bring his discussion over here, especially regarding his issue of "Genesis seeds".

 

[Emil]

I know it's hard but you have to choose.
Or random and determinism or cause-effect theory is incorrect
or determinism is correct and no random.
You can not choose both.
So?

 

[Billy T]

... Or random and determinism or cause-effect theory is incorrect
or determinism is correct and no random.
You can not choose both.

Not only are your extremely ignorant about the many demonstrations and tests of evolution (some as pointed out in my post 541) You can not even express yourself clearly:

"Both" refers to TWO alternatives or choices - You have presented THREE, which I have colored differently. Your three are separated by "or"

If you really mean three, it would be more clear if presented in a list. I.e.
(1)......
(2)......
(3)......

If you intended that the pair I have made red & blue were one choice, then "both" is OK, but don't use three "or." The normal form for a choice between two is:

Either ........ Or .........

I think you were trying to state with the first two:
"Either random and determinism or cause-effect theory is incorrect."

But that is not true as both can be correct. (Here I am assuming that "random" refers to a totally unpredictable change in the DNA at some random site. I also assume that by "determinism" you mean governed by classical physics - nothing to due with quantum mechanical uncertainties / chance).

For example, a high energy particle, say from the decay of potassium 40, or a cosmic ray, can break the internal bonds, or even the DNA molecule into two pieces, which soon rejoin but not to reproduce the original molecule exactly.
(1) Where this disruption takes place in the long DNA molecule is completely random.
(2) The disruption is certainly deterministic - I.e. following the laws of physics, just as a bullet cutting thru a mussel is. (We are just ignorant of the fine details down to the atomic level. - Our ignorance does not make the interaction non-deterministic. - It is sort of like when a die is rolled.)
(3) This disruption of the DNA is certainly "cause and effect" - The high energy particle or ray was its cause. The disruption as the effect.

-----------------
"determinism is correct and no random."
I don't understand what you are trying to assert here, but the example I just gave of deterministic process is producing a randomly located change in the DNA.

Can you re-state your post so at least it is clear what you are trying to state?

PS: I chose the decay of K40 because there is a lot of potassium in your body. Very probably at least one K40 atom did decay while you were reading my post.

 

[Emil]

Not only are your extremely ignorant about the many demonstrations and tests of evolution (some as pointed out in my post 541) You can not even express yourself clearly:

"Both" refers to TWO alternatives or choices - You have presented THREE, which I have colored differently. Your three are separated by "or"

If you really mean three, it would be more clear if presented in a list. I.e.
(1)......
(2)......
(3)......

If you intended that the pair I have made red & blue were one choice, then "both" is OK, but don't use three "or." The normal form for a choice between two is:

Either ........ Or .........

I think you were trying to state with the first two:
"Either random and determinism or cause-effect theory is incorrect."

But that is not true as both can be correct. (Here I am assuming that "random" refers to a totally unpredictable change in the DNA at some random site. I also assume that by "determinism" you mean governed by classical physics - nothing to due with quantum mechanical uncertainties / chance).

For example, a high energy particle, say from the decay of potassium 40, or a cosmic ray, can break the internal bonds, or even the DNA molecule into two pieces, which soon rejoin but not to reproduce the original molecule exactly.
(1) Where this disruption takes place in the long DNA molecule is completely random.
(2) The disruption is certainly deterministic - I.e. following the laws of physics, just as a bullet cutting thru a mussel is. (We are just ignorant of the fine details down to the atomic level. - Our ignorance does not make the interaction non-deterministic. - It is sort of like when a die is rolled.)
(3) This disruption of the DNA is certainly "cause and effect" - The high energy particle or ray was its cause. The disruption as the effect.

-----------------
"determinism is correct and no random."
I don't understand what you are trying to assert here, but the example I just gave of deterministic process is producing a randomly located change in the DNA.

Can you re-state your post so at least it is clear what you are trying to state?

PS: I chose the decay of K40 because there is a lot of potassium in your body. Very probably at least one K40 atom did decay while you were reading my post.

Your colors are very colorful but have no relation to logic.
Not passed through my mind that someone can associate determinism with random and to separate determinism from cause and effect.
Are two option:
1. Random
2. Determinism which is based on cause and effect.
Can not also have 1. and 2.
Choose one.
Also I strongly and politely asked the following link http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404
to read,but seeing as I speak alone.

 

[Billy T]

...
Your colors are very colorful but have no relation to logic.

Nor were they intended to relate to logic. - They only clearly illustrate that your were offering THREE alternatives and yet inconsistently saying "both" can not be correct. Again: "both" implies a choice between TWO.

...Not passed through my mind that someone can associate determinism with random and to separate determinism from cause and effect.

Are you asserting that which side of a coin turns up is not determined by the unknown details of how it was flipped? Except for quantum mechanical events the universe is deterministic - obeying the laws of classical physics. There is nothing of quantum physic in how the DNA undergoes deterministic changes, but the cause of these changes can be a quantum mechanical event, such as the decay of K40 that I spoke of in prior post.

...Are two options:
1. Random
2. Determinism which is based on cause and effect.
Can not also have 1. and 2.
Choose one.

No need to in some most cases when contolling deterministic factors are unknown. For exampled the results of a coin flip or the roll of a die are examples of random results produce by entirely deterministic (but not all known) factors operating under the laws of classical physic. I.e. I choose both (1) and (2) to describe coin flips or rolled die results as no quantum mechanics enters into the process.

You assert that only one of your two alternatives is possible, so please tell me which one is for a flipped coin.

...Also I strongly and politely asked the following link http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404

I quickly looked at your link's posts. That is all "old hat" to me as I have a Ph.D. in physics. I even am familiar with Bohm's alternative quantum physics, which removes the uncertainty of the standard Copenhagen interpretation and yet computes the same correct results. (I have a proof, concerning fact that all electrons are identical, that makes his "guiding wave" model inconsistent with electrons all being indistinguishable - his waves only guide "their electron" so Bohm's waves must be able to distinguish between electrons when two or more are electrons together. I liked Bohm's theory, bought his books, etc. but in the end for me, it is not consistent with all the facts.)

People like Einstein and Bohm, who don't like an indeterminate universe (God does not roll dice. etc) place their hope on "hidden variables" but that possibility has become very boxed in by non-local effects of coupled states, etc. and a famous inequality, the name of which I forget just now.

Let me be clear about your position - understand why you offered a link on quantum mechanics uncertainty, etc.

Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics uncertainty plays any role in the mutations that change the DNA?

I do not think so in most cases when the cause of the mutation is not some nuclear event (such as K40 decay particle hitting the DNA molecule). I think most DNA mutations are induced by chemical effects, some of which may be statistical in nature like the very local chance change in the concentration of H+ ions (I.e. pH changes) in the immediate environment of the DNA molecule (or the presence of other unusual molecules, such as DDT etc.)

BTW - you see the effect of these tiny volume statistical concentration changes every day - they cause the sky to be blue.

 

[Emil]

Finally we discuss.
From my link would have to conclude if there is random or not.
Your style indirectly, without giving a clear answer im not like.
For me no random.
I said that if you had read more carefully.
Others argue that there are random, but if there is random then the theory of determinism is not correct.
If you could specify your position towards random we could continue talking.

 

[Billy T]

... From my link would have to conclude if there is random or not.

Is English not your native language? There is no subject in this "sentence." I assume you are saying either: I or You would have to conclude .... BUT EVEN THEN, and without your link, one can always conclude A or not A. (A can be any property, such as "tall" "fat" "correct" "random" "wet" etc.) SUMMARY: Your "sentence" is both ill formed and without meaningful content.

... Your style indirectly, without giving a clear answer im not like.

In view of the above discussion you are in no position to be critical of my style - I am clear with well formed sentences and I answer direct questions, which you do not. For example in my last post I asked you, in bigger and bold type:

"... please tell me which one {random or deterministic} is for the flipped coin."

perhaps you did answer that with:

For me no random.

but if that is always true then you are denying the most well tested physics we know - quantum mechanics, which can compute result in some cases where very high precision experiment can also be done to achieve 14 or more significant figure agreements between measurement and theory.

I.e. BY this very well tested theory there are fundamentally random results when a non-Eigen state (a very typical state) is measured. I.e. the result will randomly, but with known probability, be one of the Eigen values of that mixed Eigen state. Only the probability of each possible result is known - the results are not deterministic.

... Others argue that there are random,

Yes every, well > than 99.9%, of all physics Ph.D.s know that "non-deterministic" results come from measurements on mixed Eigen states quantum systems.

.... but if there is random then the theory of determinism is not correct.

Determinism is strictly correct only when quantum effects play no role in the determination of the result - which is the normal case when dealing with objects consisting of nano-gram or larger masses.

If you could specify your position towards random we could continue talking.

My position is standard with more than 99% of all physics Ph.Ds. It is that except for cases where quantum effects influence the result, the universe is deterministic. - I.e. all interactions follows the laws of classical physics (as extended to include general relativity including its POV that gravity is "warped space" not a force, etc.) when there is no influence of quantum mechanics.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I'd like to see that i am joseph fellow bring his discussion over here, especially regarding his issue of "Genesis seeds".

Fortunately, the Moderators don't feel that way.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We have found fossils showing the steps of evolution. The only reason why creationist don't believe is because they are incapable of having a realistic debate.

Creationists don't believe because they are not real scientists. A scientist strives to find the truth, whether or not it agrees with his hypothesis. Creationists attempt to prove their own hypothesis. If the facts falsify it they try to cast doubt upon the facts--or, which I discovered to my dismay is far too common--they just hide them! 25-30 years ago when the creationist movement first bubbled up out of the sewers I went to a "debate" between a scientist and one of the Religious Redneck Retards. He was an articulate and engaging speaker (something scientists really need to work on!) and he had carefully selected his evidence to support his hypothesis. He chose a subset of fossils that appeared to support his point, and the "research" he cited was all in the form of theses from third-rate universities where "peer review" is a joke.

 

[Emil]

Slowly, but we advanced.
I post as I learned and how Wiki defines Darwinism,on 08-18-10:postcount=525
(Interesting but that phrase has disappeared in the meantime.wiki/Evolution)

Over many generations, mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[6] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, which produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.

It is correct to speak of random here?

P.S. Disappearance phrase above of Wiki confuse me.
Means that in time others have also noticed what I meant.
I have to revise my position.

 

[GeoffP]

Fortunately, the Moderators don't feel that way.

Pshaw. Even jello can be nailed to the wall, Fraggle - if you use enough nails.

(Don't disagree with me - this is Soviet way! )

 

[Billy T]

... It is correct to speak of random here? ...

Yes, in the same sense as one speaks of the results of rolling a die as being "random" selection of one of the following: 1,2,3,4,5,6.

You want to contrast "random" with "deterministic" as mutually exclusive processes. I.e. the idea that if the process is deterministic, then the results cannot be random, but in common usage the word "random" just means that there is no way to foretell the results, for example when a die is rolled. Yet rolling a die is a deterministic process, in that quantum mechanics plays no role in producing the result.

Likewise, as I have noted before, with this understanding of the usage of the word "random" it is usually correct to say that gene mutation is random. The most important exception would be if man has introduced an enzyme that will cleave the DNA at particular sequences and produce no effect on most of the DNA.

To expose your unique usage of the word random
I have repeatedly asked you to tell if the results of rolling a die is random or deterministic. No answer yet given!

You live in a language community that uses the word random to describe the roll of a die, but I think we both agree that there is no quantum mechanics influencing the result, so the roll of a die is a deterministic process. There are so many unknown factors that changing any,even slightly,* will change the results of the roll that we call the results random and can test the series of results produced to confirm that a "fair die" does produce a random sequence of the numbers 1 thru 6. (In fact that is the definition of a "fair die.")

In practice, as only a finite number of roll trials can be made, one can only say that the die being tested differs from a "fair die" by less than X% where X becomes smaller as more trials are included in the test. (This is called the law of large numbers.)

------------
* The roll of a die is a physical embodiment of Chaos theory.

 

[Emil]

In view of the above discussion you are in no position to be critical of my style

Yes,I am able to be critical and what I will do.
I have rarely seen such a chaotic person, inaccurate and superficial.

It is correct to speak of random here?

Yes, in the same sense as one speaks of the results of rolling a die as being "random" selection of one of the following: 1,2,3,4,5,6.


....Yet rolling a die is a deterministic process, in that quantum mechanics plays no role in producing the result.
....so the roll of a die is a deterministic process.

So,rolling a die is a deterministic random process?

I have repeatedly asked you to tell if the results of rolling a die is random or deterministic. No answer yet given!

Not true.You not asked me about rolling a die.Please give link,until then I think you say things untrue.
I asked you to read a theard. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404AstaThat was an opportunity for you to assert:

That is all "old hat" to me as I have a Ph.D. in physics.

I am forced to copy some posts that are only part of the whole but I have no choice if you're lazy to read the whole thread.

...........

.....Does not exist in nature,function that generates two different solution for the same value.Would contradict the theory of causality.
A set of cases generates an effect.Same set of causes can not generate two random effects.If a set of cases generates two different effects,it certainly is a cause that has not been taken into account and determines the effect....

.....An example is throwing the dice.
If we could take into account all the variables involved in this action,initial position of the dice,muscle tone, frequency of shaking the dice in his palm, skin elasticity,dice weight, distance between punch and table, table roughness, etc., etc...we could calculate the number that will appear on the dice.But this is impossible.For this is the calculation of probability......

Also you had opportunity to see more people think about random.

The whole discussion started because I say that is not random.
Now you asked me why not give the response is random or deterministic?
What is this? Kafka?
NO RANDOM
Is large enough for you?

 

[Billy T]

...
So, rolling a die is a deterministic random process?

Yes. As I stated in footnote of post 554, The roll of a die {or flip of a coin} is a physical embodiment of Chaos theory.

...Not true. You not asked me about rolling a die…

Technically correct. The question you have repeatedly ignored was about the flip of a coin. The answers are the same for coin or die, and I am still waiting for a simple direct answer. Here are my two original requests for an answer:

{post 547} ...You assert that only one of your two alternatives{random or deterministic} is possible, so please tell me which one is for a flipped coin. ...

{post 549}... For example in my last post I asked you, in bigger and bold type:

"... please tell me which one {random or deterministic} is for the flipped coin."

Perhaps you did answer that with:

{post 548}... For me no random. ...

but if that is always true then you are denying the most well tested physics we know - quantum mechanics, which can compute result in some cases where very high precision experiment can also be done to achieve 14 or more significant figure agreements between measurement and theory. I.e. By this very well tested theory there are fundamentally random results when a non-Eigen state (a very typical state) is measured. I.e. the result will randomly, but with known probability, be one of the Eigen values of that mixed Eigen state. Only the probability of each possible result is known - the results are not deterministic. … Determinism is strictly correct only when quantum effects play no role in the determination of the result - which is the normal case when dealing with objects consisting of nano-gram or larger masses. ...

I now ask directly: Are you by “no random” stating that there are no random processes? I.e. Are you stating that quantum mechanics’ uncertainty principle is wrong.

… I asked you to read a thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404Asta
I am forced to copy some posts that are only part of the whole but I have no choice if you're lazy to read the whole thread.
Also you had opportunity to see more people think about random. …

I read part of it, b ut no need to read all as physical facts, such as non-determinate results for measurements on quantum mechanical systems are not up for popular vote by ill-educated posters. I, and 99+% of all physics Ph. D.s, know that observation on mixed Eigen* states always have totally unpredictable results; however the probability of each is contained in the wave function. Thus, I am not concerned or impressed by many ignorant people’s opinions – Most ill educated people, I suspect, do think that quantum mechanics is wrong. That for example a single photon cannot go thru two widely separated slits or entirely different paths in a two-path interferometer. Thus I again ask directly:

Are you (with “no random”) asserting that quantum mechanics is wrong?

And please, for the fourth time, tell if rolling a die or flipping a coin is “random” or “deterministic” process with a direct answer such as:
A. Coin flipping and die rolling are determinist processes
B. Coin flipping and die rolling are random processes.

I have said that with the general meaning in English of the word “random”, and as in very common usage, both die rolling and coin flipping are called random process, but they are not fundamentally random as quantum mechanics plays not role in determining the results – They are thus deterministic process. As stated in my post 554 footnote, the best way to describe die rolling and coin flipping is that they are chaotic deterministic processes, which produce totally unpredictable results. Furthermore the results of many such coin flips produces a series of Heads & Tails which is a random series (if many flips are included in the sequence). Same is true for the roll of a die producing a random sequence of 1 thru 6 numerical results. That is why these results are called random.

----------------
*You and most of the posters at your link, don’t have the foggiest understanding of what Eigen states are and few understand Chaos theory. Why should I be concerned with their opinions? I operate on the principle that it is not necessary to eat all of a rotten egg to know it is rotten. Thus did not read all your link.

 

[Emil]

The most beautiful and useful thing because this forum is that many people in various fields of Science can meet and synchronize their theories.What you stubbornly refuse.

Yes. As I stated in footnote of post 554, The roll of a die {or flip of a coin} is a physical embodiment of Chaos theory.

No,there is determinism (specifically hard determinism)

I now ask directly: Are you by “no random” stating that there are no random processes?

Yes

I now ask directly: Are you stating that quantum mechanics’ uncertainty principle is wrong.

No

"The time dependent Schrödinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time.

So if the wave function itself is reality (rather than probability of classical coordinates), quantum mechanics can be said to be deterministic. Since we have no practical way of knowing the exact magnitudes, and especially the phases, in a full quantum mechanical description of the causes of an observable event, this turns out to be philosophically similar to the "hidden variable" doctrine["

I read part of it, b ut no need to read all as physical facts, such as non-determinate results for measurements on quantum mechanical systems are not up for popular vote by ill-educated posters. I, and 99+% of all physics Ph. D.s, know that observation on mixed Eigen* states always have totally unpredictable results; however the probability of each is contained in the wave function. Thus, I am not concerned or impressed by many ignorant people’s opinions – Most ill educated people, I suspect, do think that quantum mechanics is wrong. That for example a single photon cannot go thru two widely separated slits or entirely different paths in a two-path interferometer.

I have no trust that you will read Links so again I'll need to copy.

Varieties of determinism

Causal (or Nomological) determinism [1] generally assumes that every event has an antecedent cause in an infinite causal chain going back to Aristotle's Prime Mover or the beginning of the universe. Determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused (causa sui). Research in quantum mechanics complicates this position further (see 'Arguments' section below). Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon.


Many philosophical theories of determinism frame themselves with the idea that reality follows a sort of predetermined path
Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. A belief in Causal Determinism along with this Logical Determinism together define what is called 'Hard Determinism' (discussed further below). Note that one can support Causal Determinism without necessarily supporting Logical Determinism (depending on one's views on the nature of time) and vice versa. The problem of free will is especially salient now with Logical Determinism: how can choices be free, given that propositions about the future already have a truth value in the present (i.e. it is already determined as either true or false)? This is referred to as the problem of future contingents.[1] Often synonymous with Logical Determinism are the ideas behind Spatio-temporal Determinism or Eternalism: the view of special relativity. J. J. C. Smart, a proponent of this view, uses the term "tenselessness" to describe the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future. In physics, the "block universe" of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein assumes that time is simply a fourth dimension that already exists (like the three spatial dimensions). In other words, all the other parts of time are real, just like the city blocks up and down one's street, although we only ever perceive one part of time.

Thus I again ask directly:Are you (with “no random”) asserting that quantum mechanics is wrong?

Not,
"Often synonymous with Logical Determinism are the ideas behind Spatio-temporal Determinism or Eternalism: the view of special relativity. J. J. C. Smart, a proponent of this view, uses the term "tenselessness" to describe the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future. In physics, the "block universe" of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein assumes that time is simply a fourth dimension that already exists (like the three spatial dimensions). In other words, all the other parts of time are real, just like the city blocks up and down one's street, although we only ever perceive one part of time."

And please, for the fourth time, tell if rolling a die or flipping a coin is “random” or “deterministic” process with a direct answer such as:
A. Coin flipping and die rolling are determinist processes
B. Coin flipping and die rolling are random processes.

A. Is a determinist processes.


P.S.I give you advice.
If you ever do an applied research and the results are accurate 30%,do not abandon research
saying it is random or chaotic.Be sure that somewhere is a real cause influencing the outcome and that you have not taken into account.
Not abandon,insist and you will succeed.

 

[Billy T]

To Emil:

You have some knowledge about Quantum Mechanics, QM, but little understanding of it. I am quite certain you have never made a QM calculation for any results.

There are three equivalent ways to do these calculations.

One is the the Hamiltonia and the associated operators, which when applied to the Hamiltonian produce numerical results for observables. This is now the most commonly used method to calculate results.

One is the matrix formulation. It too has operators (in coluum matrix form). It was extensively use some years back.

One is the time dependent Schrödinger equation, which does deterministically evolve in time; however the wave function it uses / describes is not "reality." - It is not even an observable. It, like the Hamiltonian and the matrix approach are only calculation tools.

Yes, I am not about to compromise my POV with ill-educated people's opinions as I have been properly taught in university courses on quantum mechanics. Thus my POV on QM having FUNDAMENTAL uncertanities in measurement results is the same as 99+ % of all other physic Ph.D.s. You may not like that nature is not completely deterministic, but that is the fact.

You clearly deny that there is any fundamental uncertanity in measurements on a QM state / system- I.e. either deny QM totally or postulate it is incomplete and reality has not yet known hidden varibles that make all parts of the universe deterministic.

I can not give you a university course in QM. Perhaps you will take one some day. There is no point in continuing discussion with you as I can not prove that hidden variables do not exist. However, the results of "entangled state" experiments and Bell's inequality made belief in "local hidden variables" very difficult as then you must give up (as I recall - it has been >20 years since I knew this subject well) either (1) cause and effect (your deterministic universe) or (2) locality of physics (fact that only local and not distant facts control the results of experiments.)

Read about the ERP experiments and Bell's inequality. - I am now a little rusty on exactly how that effectively eliminates the "hidden variables" possibility, unless are willing to give up either cause and effect or locality.

 

[answers]

Evolution isn't science because it can't be seen and replicated.

Can you believe I've actually got a creationist trying to argue this point with me right now.

He told me speciation has to be seen to prove it. I said you can just look at evidence for it, not necessarily directly observing it happening in front of your eyes. Just like you look for evidence for gravity, or air. And I got this reply. "It is funny though that atheists get very scientific until it comes to this question of seeing something evolve and then they resort to these shallow arguments."

And I did actually say you can see bacteria evolve to deal with new antibiotics because they reproduce so quickly, but apparantly because bacteria is still bacteria, that's not evidence for evolution...

He also wrote in regards to replication:

"So, are you saying that when it comes to evolution that the ...requirement to observe it and replicate it is waved in favor of accepting it? "

My reply was this:

"I think you are just confused about the scientific method. When the scientific method talks about replicating something or reproducibility, it's talking about one experiment being reported in such a way that any ...other scientist will have enough information to replicate the experiment. In order for an experiment that is conducted that supports evolution to be valid scientifically, it must be reported with enough information to be reproducible. If another scientist does not agree with the result reported by the original scientist in a peer reviewed article, that scientist can now conduct the experiment themselves."

Am I missing something here with the scientific method? Where is it written that for science to have evidence about some natural phenomenon, scientists must be able to replicate that natural phenomenon. Does that mean that we have to make a sun in the labratory for science to have evidence that there is a sun? Am I missing something here?

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Don't argue with morons. He brought you down to his level and beat you with his experience.