Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

Not to support his position, but...

Avatar said:
Wrong according to quantum mechanics. A cat can be dead and not dead at the same time.
Click to expand...

But the spin state of an electron can be in such a state. I think it's superposition or something.

What proves that mind is seperate from matter? i.e., that mind is not a form of energy?
Click to expand...

It's easy to separate the abstract from the physical, which is what I think he's getting at.

Before that is known, we can not say that "everything that exists is either matter or mind" and we can not say the opposite too.
Click to expand...

I think we can actually, because the abstract component of reality exists only in mind.
 
Woody said:
wesmorris said: In principle evolution is merely a statement of the obvious:

Woody: Can anyone demonstrate evolution in the science lab? I don't completely deny some forms of evolution. The point being made here is -- hey if you have to proove everything in a science lab you really limit yourself. What is the strongest laboratory proof for evolution? I heard about the caterpillar that was mutated to a different species. Do you have anything better than that one?

By the way I don't want to turn this thread into a discourse on evolution. That subject has pretty well been beat to death in my opinion.
Click to expand...

IMO, evolution doesn't require laboratory proof as I stated before. With any knowledge of genetics, it's obvious.

The exact mechanism of species variation is still in question to me, but obviously those that aren't fit to survive... don't.

I did read recently though that a genetic mechanism for gene correction was found in plants. An entire repository of the history of its genome is in place in order to correct for copy errors or something like that. This could shed light on the mechanism of speciation.

To me, the principle of evolution is not questionable.
 
It's easy to separate the abstract from the physical, which is what I think he's getting at
Click to expand...
It's not, if the "abstract" can interact with the physical. Please.. I said "if". Not enough research.
I think we can actually, because the abstract component of reality exists only in mind.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we don't have a good enough picture of what exacty mind is and what's its' full structure, componets and functions are (apart from the well observable).
Well.. not good enough to my requirements at least.. I won't argue if you say that there is enough data, but there isn't enough for me.

later edit:
I did read recently though that a genetic mechanism for gene correction was found in plants.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's very interesting. Is there a discussion on that in some thread? I'd like to read.
 
Now that I think about it, I think the fact that all biology as we know it is merely an expression of genetic semantics might show there is an abstract component to evolution. That of course, is wild speculation on my part - but there seems to be something there.

I haven't seen a thread on that, as I don't frequent the biology forum. It's my worst subject and all.

EDIT: I see I read your thing about the cat incorrectly. Pardon.
 
Last edited:
Life is like a jigsaw puzzle...even if you find all the pieces and put the puzzle together, it won't tell you who made the puzzle in the first place. And you might not even recognize the picture.
 
Avatar said: Wrong according to quantum mechanics. A cat can be dead and not dead at the same time.

Woody: How so?

How can an object be totally red and not totally red at the same time?

How can an animal be physically alive and physically dead at the same time? -- impossible.
 
Woody said:
How can an object be totally red and not totally red at the same time?
Click to expand...

You're not color blind eh?

How can an animal be physically alive and physically dead at the same time? -- impossible.
Click to expand...

Schrodinger's cat. It works in principle, but I'm not sure about the reality of it. To the cat, it can be alive or dead, but to the observer of the cat, it can be stated to be both. I think it's about perspective and availability of information.

edit: http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html
 
Last edited:
Wesmorris said: IMO, evolution doesn't require laboratory proof as I stated before. With any knowledge of genetics, it's obvious.

Woody: Perhaps the geneticists could use some help proving the odvious. A little help from God that is.
 
Westmorris: Schrodinger's cat. It works in principle, but I'm not sure about the reality of it. To the cat, it can be alive or dead, but to the observer of the cat, it can be stated to be both. I think it's about perspective and availability of information.


WoodY: Ok it sounds like that argument whereby if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it does it make a noise? My answer is yes it does because soundwaves exist whether or not the human ear can perceive them.
 
Woody said:
Woody: Perhaps the geneticists could use some help proving the odvious. A little help from God that is.
Click to expand...

That's one insidious meme that's gotten ahold of you there. Good luck.
 
Woody said:
Woody: Can anyone demonstrate evolution in the science lab? I don't completely deny some forms of evolution. The point being made here is -- hey if you have to proove everything in a science lab you really limit yourself. What is the strongest laboratory proof for evolution? I heard about the caterpillar that was mutated to a different species. Do you have anything better than that one?...
Click to expand...

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
 
SG, Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963.

Woody: Ok so a fruit fly became sterile. Interesting outcome, but don't the offspring need to reproduce in order to perpetuate evolution?

It looks like a downhill outcome. Do you have any "uphill" outcomes?
 
You don't understand. The test of a species is the ability to interbreed and to produce viable offspring. What happened with the fruit flies is that two strains diverged enough genetically that interbreeding between the strains produced infertile offspring. Mules.
 
invert_nexus said: You don't understand. The test of a species is the ability to interbreed and to produce viable offspring. What happened with the fruit flies is that two strains diverged enough genetically that interbreeding between the strains produced infertile offspring. Mules.

Woody: ok I didn't make myself clear. I know what a hybrid is. For example a lion can breed with a tiger and produce a hybrid that I assume is sterile. I am looking for a result that is a little more spectacular. The hybrid result is a genetic dead end.
 
Woody,

No. It's not a genetic dead end. Each strain goes its own way. Breeding and producing viable offspring. The difference is that the two can no longer interbreed.

You want more spectacular than that? Don't know what to tell you. You've just witnessed speciation and it's not good enough for you. Sorry about your unrealistically high standards.

Avatar,

Hmm. Then if that's the case then I misunderstood. I thought it was the story of two strains diverging. Not the creation of some new group by mixing the two.
 
No, it's actually my example being slightly invalid in its' expression. I shall try to correct. Sorry. 4am
However,.. your second reply is good enough. I delete my that post.
 
spidergoat said:
Nonsense. Since there is no definition of God, the choices he poses- either it exists, or doesn't exist, is a false statement. Besides, he was educated at a Christian school, hardly an objective institution.
Click to expand...
No one can define God except the godly.
 
if god is a product of human imagination then we are its' gods, thus we can not only define it, bu also destroy it
 
invert_nexus said:

Woody,

No. It's not a genetic dead end. Each strain goes its own way. Breeding and producing viable offspring. The difference is that the two can no longer interbreed.

You want more spectacular than that? Don't know what to tell you. You've just witnessed speciation and it's not good enough for you. Sorry about your unrealistically high standards.
Click to expand...

Woody: Many creationists agree tht speciation can occur, but no more.
 
I don't think that "many creationists" is good enough authority for such a claim "no more".
Many canibals agree that by eating brain of an enemy warrior you get its' strenght.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top