Denial of evolution III

[GeoffP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

For the record, I will point out something simple. At the current time, it is Unknown as to whether or not the Universe is Deterministic with a single wave function or if it's deterministic on the macro scale but entangled at the quantum level.

Interesting: but wouldn't it the other way around? Deterministic on the short-term quantum scale but with macro-events being partially entangled by transient quantum events? I've always felt that quantum events were determined over a short window, but that prediction across windows - or even across moving windows - would be almost impossible. Maybe there's more randomness in macro-events, where they relate to the individual.

 

[GeoffP]

It's difficult to not be beaten to the obvious points when the opposition is so blatantly absurd.

Give it a little time until a real trickster comes along and my rather small brain starts to cave under the pressure and you'll be sure to be doing laps around me.

He seems to have earned a "seed ban" so it may be a while yet.

 

[Neverfly]

Interesting: but wouldn't it the other way around? Deterministic on the short-term quantum scale but with macro-events being partially entangled by transient quantum events? I've always felt that quantum events were determined over a short window, but that prediction across windows - or even across moving windows - would be almost impossible. Maybe there's more randomness in macro-events, where they relate to the individual.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, but I am guessing you're referring to sensitivity to initial conditions.

In this case, Determinism requires support that includes a single wave function for the Universe. As it is, determinism as a concept is defeated by quantum probability.

ETA: Hint- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Quantum_version_of_experiment

He seems to have earned a "seed ban" so it may be a while yet.

The light has gone out in my life or a while...

 

[matthew809]

If human DNA is like the binary code of a Windows operating system; then evolution is like a hailstorm raining down upon a Microsoft programmer's keyboard, making some random changes to the Windows source code, and by chance, these changes are not only stable, but also beneficial enough to be included in the next Windows update- making all older versions obsolete.

And considering the huge diversity of species all perfectly adapted to it's environment and living in sync with each other, this improbable occurrence happens routinely- all on the same planet, and all at the same time.

What are the chances of that?

Zero.

 

[Emil]

You're just an ordinary liar.I never ever said that.

I will, however, make a "Deterministic" prediction, based on patterns of behavior...
Emil replies: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up. I'm going to call you stupid and argue with you now and defend my silly statements no matter how much you try to educate me."

I hope that no one takes you seriously.

 

[Emil]

"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["

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2614464&postcount=557

 

[spidergoat]

If we admit the existence of random in any form,chance or inpredictibil, I say that I can cancel through logic, the theory of determinism.

Evolution works with determinism. The proof is that it can be replicated in a computer, through deterministic algorithms. A computer can generate random numbers in a deterministic way. It is practically random even though it may use some mathematical trick to pick a number. Even if is uses pi, the results are random enough to work.

In evolution, the variations don't have to be random in a non-deterministic way, because the environment is such a big factor in chosing which mutation survives.

Random is a perfectly legitimate concept in biology. If we say that an organism uses it's cilia to move around the environment at random to find food, we understand that it's still deterministic, but that it's movements are differentiated from a deliberate search pattern.

 

[Emil]

I participated in several discussions about random.
The conclusion was that there was no random.
That does not mean that there were no other opinions.
The beauty of this forum is that many fields are present from science.
If you have time please take a look here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2598652#post2598652
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103701

 

[Ophiolite]

I participated in several discussions about random.
The conclusion was that there was no random.

This was your narrow minded, biased interpretation of what happened. The consensus opinion was that you are an idiot. Fortunately idiots don't decide what random means in science.

 

[spidergoat]

I participated in several discussions about random.
The conclusion was that there was no random.
That does not mean that there were no other opinions.
The beauty of this forum is that many fields are present from science.
If you have time please take a look here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103404
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2598652#post2598652
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103701

As I explained, that doesn't matter. Can you predict the outcome of the lottery? No, because you don't have all the information about the original position and velocity of all the objects, to say nothing of the butterfly effect.

In a similar way, from the point of view of the organism, mutations do not happen in any predictable pattern.

Refute this.

 

[Emil]

Our lack of knowledge it means not that is random.
He is always deterministic.
And I have explained.
Random and determinism are not compatible.
I understand that for you are compatible and I respect your opinion.

 

[Emil]

I think now I understand.
But because I am not sure please confirm.
You think if is not random you have to admit the existence of God?

 

[alephnull]

If human DNA is like the binary code of a Windows operating system; then evolution is like a hailstorm raining down upon a Microsoft programmer's keyboard, making some random changes to the Windows source code, and by chance, these changes are not only stable, but also beneficial enough to be included in the next Windows update- making all older versions obsolete.

And considering the huge diversity of species all perfectly adapted to it's environment and living in sync with each other, this improbable occurrence happens routinely- all on the same planet, and all at the same time.

What are the chances of that?

Zero.

That is a terrible, terrible analogy. I do not know enough about you to tell whether you are joking or not though.

If [bad interpretation of concept] then [ridiculous scenario arises], therefore [concept is wrong]

I don't know the name for this method of debate but it is horrible and I see it a lot.
If you wanted a computing analogy, a much safer one would be genetic programming / evolutionary computation.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/evco

 

[spidergoat]

No. Things can be deterministically random. The throw of a dice, for instance. It's predictability is hidden in it's complex initial conditions.

I would have to admit God if the mutations were guided, if they happened in some pattern. But, we know that most mutations are either neutral or harmful. If the mechanism of evolution was simply mutation, then one would have to ask what is guiding that mutation to happen in such a way that predicts the future needs of the organism.

The mechanism of evolution is not just mutation, that, along with copying errors only produce variations, good and bad. Then, the environment selects the favorable variations.

 

[Shadow1]

random

can you pleas explain what's that rondom thing? in english, with no maths i'm still in secondary high school for that equations

 

[Emil]

If you wanted a computing analogy, a much safer one would be genetic programming / evolutionary computation.

Please could you say a few words what it is?

 

[Emil]

can you pleas explain what's that rondom thing? in english, with no maths i'm still in secondary high school for that equations

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.
Also, in statistics, as:
Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; (also) produced or obtained by such a process, and therefore unpredictable in detail.

 

[matthew809]

That is a terrible, terrible analogy. I do not know enough about you to tell whether you are joking or not though.

If [bad interpretation of concept] then [ridiculous scenario arises], therefore [concept is wrong]

I don't know the name for this method of debate but it is horrible and I see it a lot.
If you wanted a computing analogy, a much safer one would be genetic programming / evolutionary computation.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/evco

All analogies are terrible.

But.... Would you like to explain why this analogy is so bad? That might be more useful.

 

[Shadow1]

.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.
Also, in statistics, as:
Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; (also) produced or obtained by such a process, and therefore unpredictable in detail.

ah,i see

 

[Pandaemoni]

All analogies are terrible.

But.... Would you like to explain why this analogy is so bad? That might be more useful.

It's a bad analogy for two main reasons. First, the "hailstorm" does not create all that many changes in the grand scheme of things. Random mutation is relatively slow. So it should be a slower process than "hailstorm on the keyboard".

Second, you presume that the random changes are all good, and they are not. Cancer is a random mutation, and more common than beneficial ones. Your whole argument hangs on this assumption you make, and in reality it shows that you don't really understand evolution....because evolution is not random in the scientific sense. Natural selection tends to eliminate harmful mutations over time and tends to encourage beneficial mutations. Both exist, but the harmful mutations make it harder to successfully reproduce, and beneficial ones make it easier. That naturally leads to the beings with beneficial mutations passing their genes to future generations with a greater frequency than those without that benefit and doubly so than those with harmful mutations.

This complicates the use of your analogy, because the only way to save you analogy is to insert some analog to natural selection into it. So random changes do occur, and most are bad, but *only* improvements (or, less frequently, neutral elements) survive. In your analogy, the easiest way to do this is to have the software engineer weed out the harmful coding, but that then smacks of intelligent design...and given the misunderstanding of the role of natural selection, you might well seize on that inappropriately rather than seeing it as an artifact of the attempt to save your analogy.