Denial of evolution III

[Neverfly]

That's a lie.

Everyone knows we are perfect.

Even the banana was designed for how perfect we are.

GeoffP, you missed the point. I'm actually surprised that it went over your head.
You are usually pretty on the ball. But you missed the mark on this one.



See, we all know it's a lie. The problem is, as paid government disinformation agents, it's our duty to support the claim and to make it as believable as possible while practicing plausible deniability.

I'm afraid I will have to report this little slip up to your superior. Don't bother checking your mailbox this month or your direct deposit slips.

 

[Emil]

GeoffP,
Are you sure that these changes are random,
and are not written somewhere in the genes or
RNA or somewhere we have not discovered yet?

 

[Neverfly]

GeoffP,
Are you sure that these changes are random,
and are not written somewhere in the genes or
RNA or somewhere we have not discovered yet?

If that was the case- Why the billions of years of trial and error? May as well skip all that suffering and go right to the conclusion, don't you think?

I see that you still have no idea what "random" means.

 

[spidergoat]

GeoffP,
Are you sure that these changes are random,
and are not written somewhere in the genes or
RNA or somewhere we have not discovered yet?

It's not completely random because genomes can contain redundant information, causing some areas of the genome to be more resistant to change, and others more "evolvable". It's the evolution of evolvability.

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP, you missed the point. I'm actually surprised that it went over your head.
You are usually pretty on the ball. But you missed the mark on this one.



See, we all know it's a lie. The problem is, as paid government disinformation agents, it's our duty to support the claim and to make it as believable as possible while practicing plausible deniability.

I'm afraid I will have to report this little slip up to your superior. Don't bother checking your mailbox this month or your direct deposit slips.

Oh noes! Please don't tell them: I have to make a Lamborghini payment.

GeoffP,
Are you sure that these changes are random,
and are not written somewhere in the genes or
RNA or somewhere we have not discovered yet?

Well, not all mutation is random: certain sites seem to be preferentially mutable. As for "written in", I think what you're driving at is phenotypic plasticity. Funnily enough, I actually can't talk about it further as I'm submitting a grant on it in a couple months. No, really. It's some wicked shit.

 

[Neverfly]

Oh noes! Please don't tell them: I have to make a Lamborghini payment.

You're still paying on it?!
Well... I actually shouldn't be surprised, considering the sloppiness earlier...

Well, not all mutation is random: certain sites seem to be preferentially mutable. As for "written in", I think what you're driving at is phenotypic plasticity. Funnily enough, I actually can't talk about it further as I'm submitting a grant on it in a couple months. No, really. It's some wicked shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/short/191/19/5881

Well, since it came up...

 

[Emil]

Meanwhile I thought where we split thinking in different ways?
That is back to throwing the dice.

Specific:
I am convinced that if the terms of throwing the dice are identical then the result is identical.
General:
A set of causes lead to a single efecct.
If you have two different effects,sure I neglected a cause(or causes).
Can not occur as a set of identical cases lead to two different random effects.

So if we have identical conditions as 4 billion years ago when the first life forms appeared,the result life on earth(due to evolution) is exactly as it is today.
So within 4 billion years there is nothing random.

 

[spidergoat]

If evolution started over with the same initial conditions, it would not turn out the same.

 

[iceaura]

Take the woodpecker- and the fact that it must have evolved a super-tough bill, better shock-absorbers throughout the body, and a desire/willingness to peck into trees- all at the same time(sync)

That's obviously not true. Tough beaks are widely useful for birds, the desire to dig into insect infested wood is fairly common in birds, some mammals, other insects, etc, and either or both of those features could have existed for millions of years, separately or together in one bird, without woodpeckers developing.

We know these things partly by simple common sense, and partly because we can see examples flying around today. Chickadees, for one.

Which brings up another matter: my guess is that you did not think up the woodpecker example yourself - you got it from a creationist website or publication. These arguments are more than a hundred years old now, and that particular example is long handled within them - since long before anyone had any idea how woodpeckers did actually evolve. There is almost no chance that any major, modern creationist website or publication is unaware or ignorant of this.

So the question you might want to ask yourself is this one: what is up with your source? Is it incapable of following these simple, thoroughly considered arguments, or is it lying to you?

 

[matthew809]

Which brings up another matter: my guess is that you did not think up the woodpecker example yourself - you got it from a creationist website or publication.

Yea you got me there.

Maybe it wasn't the best example to use to make my point.

So here's another idea. Evolution depends on the flexibility and upgradability of our DNA programming right? So, evolutionary change should not be judged by the qualities of the animal, but by the quality of the animal's DNA. Only by looking at the DNA can you really see what changes were made, the real quality and quantity of DNA changes.

For example, some might consider a cow evolving into a giraffe to be evolutionary just from looking at the animal(it's just hypothetical, I don't really know). But if you take a deeper look and compare the cow's DNA to the giraffe's DNA, it may turn out that the giraffe's DNA is not fundamentally different, only restructured and copied-and-pasted within the allowable parameters of it's original programming. In this example, the giraffe didn't get any more fundamentally complex.

Back to my Windows analogy. DNA code is like computer code in that it can not become any more complex than it's original programming allows for. And if one were to start haphazardly switching code blocks in the source code, and pounding on the keyboard, it's very unlikely that a more "evolved" code would emerge. Sure, something different would definitely be the outcome(most likely a list of error messages). Maybe the program would actually be still functional. But what are the chances that the program would have evolved into something any more fundamentally complex?

But anyway, isn't it fair to say that evolution can not be proven true until the DNA programming language is fully understood?

 

[Emil]

And the dice?

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

But anyway, isn't it fair to say that evolution can not be proven true until the DNA programming language is fully understood?

No, that isn't fair statement.

 

[Emil]

Oopsss ....I told you.:itold:

 

[Ophiolite]

Evolution depends on the flexibility and upgradability of our DNA programming right?

Upgradability carries with it the implications of 'improvement' and 'improvement' with reference to some absolute standard. If this is what you intended then you are mistaken.

So, evolutionary change should not be judged by the qualities of the animal, but by the quality of the animal's DNA.

Correct. Evolutionary change should not be judged.

Wait a moment...you added something more.

You are back on this 'improvement' kick, aren't you? How do you judge the quality of an animals DNA? What do you mean by good quality DNA? Excellent DNA? Terrible DNA? It's meaningless to try to make these kinds of distinctions in the way you intend.

Nature, however, does judge an animal's DNA by judging the animal's quality. Exactly what you think shouldn't happen, but exactly what does. And it does not do it on an absolute scale where this DNA and hence this animal is 'higher' quality than that one. It does it on the basis that this animal is fitter to survive and reproduce in this particular environment. Change the environment and you change the 'quality' of the DNA and the 'quality' of the animal that will survive.

Only by looking at the DNA can you really see what changes were made, the real quality and quantity of DNA changes.

Looking at the DNA allows us to quantify and specify the changes. It tells us nothing about the quality of those changes for the reasons noted above.

For example, some might consider a cow evolving into a giraffe to be evolutionary just from looking at the animal(it's just hypothetical, I don't really know).

OF course its frigging evolutionary. It's changed its phenotype radically through a change of genotype. It's ancestral line has evolved. It is evolution.

Once more you seem to be on this misguided roll where you conflate evolution with improvement.

But if you take a deeper look and compare the cow's DNA to the giraffe's DNA, it may turn out that the giraffe's DNA is not fundamentally different, only restructured and copied-and-pasted within the allowable parameters of it's original programming. In this example, the giraffe didn't get any more fundamentally complex.

You are at it again! You think evolution means becoming more complex!!
Here you are, on this forum, arguing the case on evolution and you don't even understand the first principles. There are many here who will be happy to teach you, but first you have to abandon these simplistic, distorted notions.

Back to my Windows analogy. DNA code is like computer code in that it can not become any more complex than it's original programming allows for.

We already know this is not the case, so your argument falls at the first hurdle, or more precisely you have enjoyed a false start.

 

[Emil]

Meanwhile I thought where we split thinking in different ways?
That is back to throwing the dice.

Specific:
I am convinced that if the terms of throwing the dice are identical then the result is identical.
General:
A set of causes lead to a single efecct.
If you have two different effects,sure I neglected a cause(or causes).
Can not occur as a set of identical cases lead to two different random effects.

So if we have identical conditions as 4 billion years ago when the first life forms appeared,the result life on earth(due to evolution) is exactly as it is today.
So within 4 billion years there is nothing random.

Emil,
I understand your determinism.
Like spacetime.

The concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract "space", for which a unified coordinate system is chosen. In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space), i.e. time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid.

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.

So where is determined the past, the present and the future.Nothing is random.

But then what happens with free will?
Means that you can not take any decision?
All your decisions are already determined?

Free will and determinism

Philosophers have argued that either Determinism is true or Indeterminism is true, but also that 'Free will' either exists or it does not. This creates four possible positions. Compatibilism refers to the view that free will is, in some sense, compatible with Determinism. The three 'Incompatibilist' positions, on the other hand, deny this possibility. They instead suggest there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will (only one can be true).
To the Incompatibilists, one must choose either free will or Determinism, and maybe even reject both. The result is one of three positions:
Metaphysical Libertarianism (free will, and no determinism) a position not to be confused with the more commonly cited Political Libertarianism
Hard Determinism (Determinism, and no free will)
Hard Indeterminism (No Determinism, and no free will either).
Thus, although many Determinists are Compatibilists, calling someone a 'Determinist' is often used to denote the 'Hard Determinist' position.
The Standard argument against free will, according to philosopher J. J. C. Smart focuses on the implications of Determinism for 'free will' [7]. He suggests that, if determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are not free; if indeterminism is true, our actions are random and still we do not seem free.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I am convinced that if the terms of throwing the dice are identical then the result is identical.


That's what common sense would say, I agree, but
Emil, that's just not the case. Experimentally not the case.

Do a google search for chaos theory.

 

[Sarkus]

Please note that there is a difference between "that's just not the case" and "Experimentally not the case".

Chaos theory does not counter his statement/conviction.
Chaos theory, as I'm sure you are aware, relates to the sensitivity of an outcome to the opening conditions... i.e. comparison of outcomes from SIMILAR BUT NON-IDENTICAL starting conditions.

Emil is clearly detailing the theoretical case of IDENTICAL starting conditions.

Determinism suggests that identical starting conditions should lead to identical conclusions.
Experimentally, I agree, such a position can not be practically tested due to chaos theory and the inability to construct absolutely identical starting conditions.

A counter to determinism would be to assess whether part of the causal chain is probabilistic/random or not. QM suggests probabilistic outcomes at the quantum level - which would counter the idea of strict determinism, as I understand it.

Emil, as for your query about the compatibility with free-will, many would argue that a deterministic causal link or even a random causal link is incompatible with the concept of free-will - that either free-will exists or the deterministic/random causal chain exists - but not both.

 

[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."

 

[Billy T]

"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."

Consider a simpler deterministic time evolution equation which gives the probability of observing an event or the result of a measurement I.e. instead of the Schrödinger equation, lets simply illustrate your post is nonsense:

E.g. Assume the probability of an event, which varies continuously between 1 and 0, is given by the deterministically with time, t, equation as:

P(t) = 0.5 + {sin(2pi t/T)}/2

I.e. the observation of the event is certain only when t = 0, T, 2T 3T…. etc.

It is the event that is the reality, not the means of computing how probable it is to be observed.

SUMMARY:
The QM wave function is NOT reality – only one of several means of computing the probability of the real event / measured result.

Note as I did not tell the value of T, you might also consider that to be a hidden variable.; however the concept of "hidden variables" is about possible REAL variable that mankind has not yet discovered, not phases etc. in computational equation for calculating probabilities.

 

[Emil]

Consider a simpler deterministic time evolution equation which gives the probability of observing an event or the result of a measurement I.e. instead of the Schrödinger equation, lets simply illustrate your post is nonsense:

E.g. Assume the probability of an event, which varies continuously between 1 and 0, is given by the deterministically with time, t, equation as:

P(t) = 0.5 + {sin(2pi t/T)}/2

I.e. the observation of the event is certain only when t = 0, T, 2T 3T…. etc.

It is the event that is the reality, not the means of computing how probable it is to be observed.

SUMMARY:
The QM wave function is NOT reality – only one of several means of computing the probability of the real event / measured result.

Note as I did not tell the value of T, you might also consider that to be a hidden variable.; however the concept of "hidden variables" is about possible REAL variable that mankind has not yet discovered, not phases etc. in computational equation for calculating probabilities.

I can not contradict you becauseI do not know so well QM like you.
But I mind open and look and learn.
I am interested in the conclusions of specialists in any field.
The quote I used I found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
To convince me that you are right and not the quot which I've used you have to give a link.

And also I found this:
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Varieties_of_determinism

And if you want, please look to this.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104231