|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2008 : 03:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
| It is also directly contradicted by the data we have |
As far as I can tell no one has ever heard of the idea. So how can you have data that contradicts it? No pressure - just curious.
|
Your idea would mean that the outcome of the mutations is dependent on the observer. Presumably these would reflect what helps the observer along. However, what we actually see is that mutations go in all directions. Some are good, some are bad, most are neutral.
This is shown extremely well by the experiments on mutations that have been done with bacteria, for example by Luria Delbruck. In these experiments, a single bacteria is set in a culture and allowed to multiply, forming a colony. Since bacteria multiply asexually, all their genomes will be the same, unless a mutation occurred after the bacteria multiplied.
Now, we take all the new bacteria in the colony and grow them in a new culture, with different circumstances that are toxic to the original bacteria. If no mutations would have happened, all would have died. If mutations would (by your quantum mechanism, whatever it is) be dependent on the "observer" (which would be the bacteria presumably) all bacteria would show a similar mutation and thus either all would live or all would die. What is actually observed in these experiments is that the majority dies, but some live. This is in line with the occurence of mutations that are random with respect to the environment (and before you ask, this can be shown statistically). Hence, these experiments support the random occurrence of mutations (with respect to environment) and falsify the non-random occurrence of them.
Furthermore, on a more theoretical level there is no experimental or theoretical basis for an observer effect as you claim. Observer effects where the occurrence of an effect is dependent on the presence of an observer only happen in settings where the observervation is part of the actual process. This also holds true for quantum mechanics, at least according to most physicists. In mutations, as observers the organism to which it happens does not take part in the event, it only takes part after the effects are taking place. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 06:11:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
After that thrashing I'm feeling just a bit timid. But not enough to not say this:
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.
|
As the saying goes, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. This is just another silly attempt at steering the "conversation" into new territory where the "the-(no1)nose-smeels-to-much-shit-because-it-is-too-close-to-the-mouth" can spout off more of his/her crap. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 07:05:22 [Permalink]
|
Whatever happened to answering this list:
* ...a culturally based epistemology that works as well as science for learning about our world.
* ...evidence that had some other culture come up with evolution, it would somehow be different.
* ...that the theory of evolution lacks a mathematical foundation.
* ...that the theory of evolution cannot be empirically verified.
* ...that "many words have been written about the differences between evolution and Christianity."
* ...your probability calculation for determining that the alleged parallels between evolution and Christianity are not coincidence.
* ...that people who can only think "linearly" could ever come up with an equation including an r2 term.
* ...that the space between electron shells in an atom is "forever empty."
* ...that past history is a good indicator of the future of evolutionary theory.
* ...that part of your motivation for posting here is to test your own beliefs in an open forum.
* ...that "Evolution is simply an idea in some people's minds and not the reality of the natural world."
* ...that biological extinction is an apt parallel with Christianity's Hell.
* ...that evolutionary theory "is a nothing more than a world view."
* ...that you "have raised the question of where Darwin got his ideas as a serious issue."
* ...that you "have shown the clear parallels between Christian and Evolutionary scenarios."
* ...that defending evolution means one defends Christianity.
* ...that if everyone became like Jesus there would be no death or sickness or war.
* ...that evolution "is about the survival of the fittest."
* ...that "many social evils follow naturally from the theory of evolution core ideas."
* ...that "Evolution is presented as a complete description of nature."
* ...that "Darwin just filled in the gaps with a bit of twisted christianity."
* ...that you are "making some valid points."
* ...another "theory of life" that competes with evolutionary theory?
* ...anyone here saying that evolution is correct because you're a hypocrite.
* ...that the "observer" of quantum physics acts as you say.
* ...that Relativity requires an "observer."
* ...that "the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer."
* ...that evolution asserts that changes will be "random."
* ...that there is a trend towards "beauty" in the "natural world."
It is noted that no1nose is yet again steering clear of all this.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 07:18:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
After that thrashing I'm feeling just a bit timid. But not enough to not say this:
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.
|
By these kind of reasoning, everything, as it most basic level are a result of quantum physics (they all involve atoms at some point).
So EVERYTHING should be observer determined.
That's just silly. Above the sub-atomic level, the quantum effects can be very accurately predicted through statistic and are, for all intent and purpose, deterministic.
Also, different regions of the genome have different mutation rates. But these mutation rates appear to be fairly constant regardless of any observer effects.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 07:19:30 [Permalink]
|
pleco said:
| It is noted that no1nose is yet again steering clear of all this.... |
Hey, in his mind all he has to do to satisfy our request is make an assertion. He said it, therefore it must be true!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 07:47:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
pleco said:
| It is noted that no1nose is yet again steering clear of all this.... |
Hey, in his mind all he has to do to satisfy our request is make an assertion. He said it, therefore it must be true!
|
Assertions = truth. Ah yes....
Can't blame him for panicing; the number of asinine assertions in that freak-show defy not just belief, but reason as well. I especally like the picture of Moses riding on the Tyrannosaurid, carved rock & all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 08:22:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
So EVERYTHING should be observer determined.
That's just silly. |
It sounds like Frank Tipler's "Omega" nonsense, which basically boils down to God being the "observer" needed to keep the whole universe running while people aren't "observing" it.
It all revolves around a misunderstanding of the "role of the observer," a misunderstanding that makes millions of dollars for "quantum medicine" quacks like Deepak Chopra (of "happy thoughts make happy molecules" fame).
In reality, the whole "quantum physics requires an observer" crap is new-age anthropomorphic nonsense. "Observations" are needed, but they're simply measurements, and don't require any sort of intelligence to make. Any time there is an interaction between two particles, each one "observes" the other, and their wave functions collapse as appropriate. And the observations don't change the interaction, they just define when it occurs.
Anyone who resorts to there being a need for "an observer" for any quantum interactions which might affect the order of DNA bases in a creature's genes has an incorrect (though popular) view of quantum physics and so is necessarily arguing from false premises. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 09:40:53 [Permalink]
|
The miss appropriation of quantum physics is everywhere in the New Age. The observer idea is just too much for them to pass on. So they get into things like pushing our ability to change reality by changing what we believe about reality. And they mean it too. It's not being used as a metaphor. Actually changing physical reality by changing your belief about it is cutting edge pseudoscience in the new age. Our thoughts literally give the world form and substance and everything else.
With this view, what we know about science, for example, we chose to know because we created a belief about it prior to our observations. So what we observe is dependent on what we already believe to be true.
And to their thinking, quantum physics supports that view.
no1nose seems to be applying some, but not all of this new age concept to his version of creationism. How this jibes with any Christian held dogma I have no idea other than lacking a human observer, creation wise, there had to be some other intelligence. God. It's ID creationism wrapped in a new age package. I would hesitate in calling this view post-modern, because it seems to me that if it were, all beliefs would be equal. My belief that evolution happens would be just as valid as a Christians belief that it doesn't, and no1nose would have to accept that. He doesn't.
Still, his pseudoscience and new age pseudoscience are based on the same premise. And they are both wrong…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 13:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Yes, and good morning to you too.
Life changes and I don't have a problem with that. But the Theory of Evolution has some bad baggage assoiated with it. One of these is the idea of random mutations. For me the idea of observer determined quantum outcomes at the genetic level provides a feedback loop and would explain the changes that do happen much better than the idea of random.
Perhaps it could be tested statistically on the premise that conscious guided changes would achieve quicker and more direct changes in living things. Perhaps produce far fewer mutations than would be expected if changes were purely by chance.
|
| Edited by - no1nose on 06/18/2008 13:58:22 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 14:01:54 [Permalink]
|
But the mutation rates have already been investigated pretty thoroughly.
There are a few factors known to affect them. The main one being the existence of a duplicate for the gene being mutated.
| the idea of observer determined quantum outcomes at the genetic level provides a feedback loop |
Can you detail what you mean here? I am not quite sure.
Do you mean: 'Mutations -> affect mind -> Affect mutations'?
How would that fit the observed data better than random change?
And, evolution, the observed change, is anything but direct. And it's not very quick either, even if fast evolving organisms such as bacteria make it look easy. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 14:13:21 [Permalink]
|
Ok, your post is clearer after you added this last sentence.
| Perhaps produce far fewer mutations than would be expected if changes were purely by chance. |
.
But in fact, statistics have been done and show us that the rate of mutation is very much what one would expect if they happened at random (here).
And, by which mechanism would you explain the concious mind to affect quantum events? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 14:22:46 [Permalink]
|
| And, evolution, the observed change, is anything but direct. And it's not very quick either, even if fast evolving organisms such as bacteria make it look easy. |
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 but still remained active in the water supply. In the country with untreated water the same strain of bacteria remained virulent and was the cause of a number of deaths. What would be your explanation for this? |
| Edited by - no1nose on 06/18/2008 14:29:10 |
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 14:27:20 [Permalink]
|
| But in fact, statistics have been done and show us that the rate of mutation is very much what one would expect if they happened at random (here). |
Mutations may be random and beneficial changes conscious determined. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 14:32:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
Mutations may be random and beneficial changes conscious determined. |
"Beneficial changes" are mutations.
How about you provide a plausible mechanism whereby an "observer" might dictate what sort of "beneficial changes" occur? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Darwin’s debt to Christianity
Topic Locked
