Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[-=Vagrant=-]

Flying squirrels, mudskippers, walrusses and seals are NOT transitional animals. God just made them look like the perfect example of a transitional animal. So there, you Evilutionists!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Flying squirrels, mudskippers, walrusses and seals are NOT transitional animals. God just made them look like the perfect example of a transitional animal. So there, you Evilutionists!

Interesting examples, though I doubt that flying squirrels consider themselves to be transitional. Rather, (if they were to ponder the matter), they would probably believe themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution, and perfectly adapted to their environment.

I wonder. Are humans transitional?

[MrBaggins]

In order to be able to consider the immanent qualities and substance of "elementary particles", physicists have to turn to the framework of Quantum Field Theory. Essentially, Quantum Field Theory is a specialized set of mathematical formulas and rules by means of which one, in a consistent and very detailed manner, can consider questions such as 'what is the true origin and intrinsic nature of matter, charge, force etc.' and 'what is really going on at the most fundamental levels of nature'. Actually, Quantum Field Theory is not a theory as such but is more like a complex and content rich language well equipped for describing and "verbalizing" realms where other languages (such as English or the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics) have to give up.

To define QFT elementally.

What is a field? Mathematically, a point is an entity which has no extent but is infinitely small. A mathematical field is an infinite set of such points that are continuously distributed throughout space. In physics, one or other quality is attributed to each point so the corresponding field thus becomes a medium of this quality. Depending on which quality is attributed the field may be a force field, a matter field, an energy field, etc. - Now, probably this concept of infinite sets of infinitely small entities is hard to grasp for the uninitiated but do not despair. The important thing to remember is that a field is a phenomenon which is continuously distributed throughout space.

What is a quantum field? In Quantum Field Theory one applies certain mathematical operations to the fields whereby these become quantized. The immediate consequence of quantizing a field is that certain subsets of the points, constituting the field, are restricted to be finite and discrete quantities of the attributed quality, rather than the quality being uniformly distributed throughout the whole field. Such discrete subsets of a field are called field quanta - or quanta for short. Each kind of field has its own kind of quanta, which have been given a more or less fanciful name. F.ex., photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic force-field, gluons are the quanta of the strong force-field, quarks and electrons are quanta of matter-fields, etc.

What is a quantum? Unfortunately, the term 'particle' is often used as a synonym for 'quantum'. This unhappy mixing of concepts has served to obscure the circumstance, that through the 20'th century a brandnew worldview has gradually emerged, totally different from the worldviews of preceding times. Let us be specific: A particle is a discrete entity residing or moving in an empty region of space - usually called vacuum. The particle's intrinsic substance and qualities are totally independent of this vacuum. A field quantum is a discrete entity residing or moving in a continuous medium. Its intrinsic substance and qualities are direct manifestations of this medium. Although all branches of physics agree conceptually, that the "elementary particles" are not particles but field quanta, it is almost exclusively Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity (gravitational field theory) that actually take the immanent field properties into account. However, this is mainly a matter of technical pragmatism. The mathematical complexity of field theories is tremendeous and the phenomena, encountered in other branches of natural science, can be handled quite well without bothering about field properties.

Having thus settled the technical issues, what kind of worldview is that has gradually emerged through the 20'th century? - Well, since the times of the ancient Greeks the Western worldview has been dominated by the idea that everything in the physical universe was made up by minute, indivisible building blocks of a fixed size and outline - i.e. particles. From its advent until the early nineteen-thirties the main course of natural science was to detect still smaller representatives for the basic building blocks. Nevertheless, the overall, conceptual yield of Quantum Field Theory is a worldview according to which, everything in the universe is nothing but the appearances of vibrating, interacting fields. - Is there, perhaps, some kind of field which is more fundamental than any other field? - Quantum Field Theory says yes.

In fact... at its highest level, the universe could have said to be a single, complex quantum-field.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You picked the word "significant." Quantum effects are generally not significant on the macro scale. But the question is, do they exist in the macro-scale at all. If they do not exist, then quantum effects may just be an approximation of the "ultimate" reality. Otherwise, . . .

Does anyone have a link describing the experiment?

Roger Penrose is looking to save science by unifying classical and quantum science.

His view is that the elemental construction of the universe are twistors (IIRC?) He's been working on that a *long* time. One of his co-authors, Steve Hawkins does not share his absolute view.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
My God man, they are ready to start cloning people! They're splicing genes between species. This is serious stuff. One day soon, when artificial evolution kicks in, we may look on natural evolution as the good old days.

Taiwan's scientists clone pigs which carry human DNA

http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/04/20/story/0000132577

[Dauphin]

Its from a passworded archive, so I have to copy and paste:

Bouwmeester and Marshall plan to put a microscopic crystal, less than a micrometre across and containing about 10¹⁵ atoms, into a superposition of being in two different places at once. Tiny though this crystal is, by quantum standards it is huge-well within the realm of the macroscopic world. Penrose estimates the crystal's mass will force any superposition to decay within 1/100th to 1/10th of a second. That's slow enough to measure the change, and fast enough to distinguish the result from standard quantum mechanics, which decrees the superposition should last indefinitely.

The experiment will begin with a laser firing a photon at a beam splitter (see Graphic), which sends the photon along two paths at once in classic quantum fashion. Along one path the photon heads towards a mirror, which reflects it back to the beam splitter. On the other path, the photon hits a crystal suspended on a carbon filament in such a way that it will recoil slightly when hit by the photon. The superposition of the two photon paths forces the crystal into its own superposition of two locations at once: one where it has recoiled and the other where it remained stationary because the photon took the other path.

After bouncing off the face of the crystal, the photon then heads towards a second mirror. This portion of the photon's flight is timed precisely so that the photon is reflected back to arrive at the crystal at the very moment this has returned to its original position. The crystal then reflects the photon back to the beam splitter, where it recombines with its parallel state as if they had never been apart.

"If quantum mechanics with all of its superpositions remains true, then it will always go back out the way it came," says Penrose. In this case, everything about the original photon is preserved. It passes through the beam splitter the way it came, and goes straight back into the laser. The photon detector placed in the alternate path from the beam splitter will detect nothing. If the detector does register nothing every time the experiment is run, it will confirm that each photon is indeed "aware" of both paths.

But the researchers will arrange the experiment so that the photon's flight through the apparatus takes more than one-tenth of a second. In this case, Penrose says the crystal's superposition should decay while the photon is still in the apparatus. That means the two possible paths will have reverted to one, and the photon's superposition will also have to decay. In this scenario, the photon comes to the beam splitter having been forced to choose one path or another. At the beam splitter it might be sent back into the laser, but half of the time it will be reflected another way and end up in the waiting detector.

Also a research group doing an experiment with the same objective, different method:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/artsci/physics/research.html#cmexpthy

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
There have been many examples of fraud and miss interruption of fossil, which have been at one time said to be missing links to human evolution. Analyzing fossils is not a perfect science, and mistakes can be made, and in fact major mistakes have been made, and some very few people have engaged in out right fraud.

That's correct. Fossils are rare to come by, and they are very difficult to read, even experts can make mistakes.

But that's all right, because science is self-correcting. Frauds will be exposed, flaws will be corrected. Consider that the exposers of scientific frauds have all been scientists, this holds true so far.

However, this cannot be said of creationism accounts, whether it is veiled in "science" or not. Simply, there is no theory to creationism, no theory in terms of science at any rate.

We understand our knowledge of the world is imperfect, that's why there is a built-in correction mechanism in science. We are relentlessly skeptical, constantly demanding evidence.

Fortunately for us, creationists don't work that way. They can stoop down to any level - no trick is too dirty. Creationists are fond of misquoting and quoting out of context. They love to inflat their own titles (I personally have sniffed out a few) and refuse to acknowledge mistakes. They resort to logical fallaices and downright falseholds. When presented with pointedly challenges all they do is evade.

In "Archaeopteryx and the Creationists" Lenny Frank recounted some of the usual tricks used by creationists.

EDIT: this section in the talks.origin archives cannot be missed. It contains a number of informative exposure of creationist lies, misquotes, and assorted underhanded tricks. Not to mention the funnies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No, the burden of proof is on the one who seeks to overthrow about 5 thousand years of experimentally proved fact. That is, Coded information that is stored in a specified order and provides translatable and communicative instructions ALWAYS derives from a mental process. Now prove that to be wrong and you can be another Einstein.

First thing is, where is this fact? Links? Sources? What?

Originally posted by Lincoln
I did not question evolution on a micro level.

So you are accepting that these are facts:

1. Genetic information is mutable by random, natural processes

2. Environmental pressure will select among indivduals with genetic alleles, causing a shift in their distribution.

Originally posted by Lincoln
I already did that.

Will check on it. Thanks. EDIT: I searched through the thead and it appears you in fact did not answer my question.

[MrBaggins]

Urban Ranger... look at these answers by Lincoln>

5) You believe that microevolution occurs today? Yes or No
6) You believe that macroevolution never occured? Yes or No

5. Yes
6. I cannot say "never".

Lincoln agrees that evolution happens, but is bounded arbitrarily.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If you ask World famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould if there is ANY fossil Evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution here is what he would say:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradulistic accounts of evolution"

Jay Gould is saying this:

1. The fossil records support evolution
2. It is very hard to locate fossils of transitional forms

Notice that he did not say that these fossils do not exist.

So what's the problem? It is well understood that fossils took very precise conditions to form, thus they are hard to come by. It is actually indicative of evolution's explanatory power that transitional forms are hard to find. Evolution predicted that these lifeforms existed for only short periods of time, for they would be unable to compete against newer, more adapted lifeforms. This fits in beautifully with the rarity of transitional fossils.

Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's correct. Fossils are rare to come by, and they are very difficult to read, even experts can make mistakes.

But that's all right, because science is self-correcting. Frauds will be exposed, flaws will be corrected. Consider that the exposers of scientific frauds have all been scientists, this holds true so far.

However, this cannot be said of creationism accounts, whether it is veiled in "science" or not. Simply, there is no theory to creationism, no theory in terms of science at any rate.

We understand our knowledge of the world is imperfect, that's why there is a built-in correction mechanism in science. We are relentlessly skeptical, constantly demanding evidence.

Fortunately for us, creationists don't work that way. They can stoop down to any level - no trick is too dirty. Creationists are fond of misquoting and quoting out of context. They love to inflat their own titles (I personally have sniffed out a few) and refuse to acknowledge mistakes. They resort to logical fallaices and downright falseholds. When presented with pointedly challenges all they do is evade.

In "Archaeopteryx and the Creationists" Lenny Frank recounted some of the usual tricks used by creationists.

EDIT: this section in the talks.origin archives cannot be missed. It contains a number of informative exposure of creationist lies, misquotes, and assorted underhanded tricks. Not to mention the funnies.

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, but I just look at the evidence. Most of the information I have looked at was not written by mainstream creationist. I never try to use under handed tricks or lie. I try to keep an open mind. I do not totall dissagree with those of you who support evolution, and I can see how one can come to that conculsion when looking at the fossil record.

The weakest do die, and the fittest do live on. We have seen many species under go small changes. Were I think the evidence is lacking is were for example reptiles evolving into birds. I would also say that not every one who believes life was created does these things, and same would be true for those who support evolution, not all have commited fraud, and be disshonest.

[Lincoln]

"Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution."

Sorry that there is not enough "non evidence" to support the latest version of Darwinism. Maybe you all can figure out what exactly it is that you all are looking for. Darwin said that transitions would support his theory, you and other punctuated equilibrium types say that you don't need the transitions (now that you haven't found them). So which is it? Are you looking for less evidence or more? Would absolutely no evidence prove your case?

In other words the theory is a joke. It is based on a lack of evidence because none was found.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Jay Gould is saying this:

1. The fossil records support evolution
2. It is very hard to locate fossils of transitional forms
. . .
Evolution predicted that these lifeforms existed for only short periods of time, for they would be unable to compete against newer, more adapted lifeforms. This fits in beautifully with the rarity of transitional fossils.

Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution.

Not only do transitional forms only last for a short period of time, but they may be located in geographically small areas. Many times new species are spawned when small groups are geologically isolated. The small population allows for rapid genetic change, especially during times of stress.

[Lincoln]

Here is the watchmaker thing that I answered. If you have any more questions about it let me know:

From R.J. Riggins:

“. . . watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved. The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils", then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert.”

Mr. Riggins here is trying to refute the requirement of a designer behind a watch (or biological machine) by suggesting that “evolution” can do it without any help from an intelligent source i.e. God. Of course the fact that watches improved over time into their present form does not explain the necessity of a human being behind each evolutionary improvement of the watch. Nor does it solve the problem of the existence of the first watch which regardless of its supposed primitive form was still quite complicated and required a designer.

“OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of simple chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating, if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve.”

Here Mr. Riggins explains how molecules spontaneously form into more complex molecules. He is correct, but that fact, as we showed in the example of snowflakes and DNA, does not solve the information problem. Nor does it solve the problem of regulation and complex interaction of biological machinery. This is what I call the “snowflake argument” and we find it in many forms. The flaw in reasoning though is always the same. A machine may be composed of naturally formed elements but these interesting shapes and patterns and combinations of molecules cannot form themselves into a complicated interactive machine that is analogous to a living organism. Nor are these complex molecules analogous to information.

His assertion that some compounds are “self replicating” also is misleading because they are replicating themselves. This proves that a gear designed by a human being can be stamped out in a factory automatically by machine. A living cell is not just a container full of parts that float around looking for a function or another chemical to randomly interact with. Even if one does not assume a designer behind the chemical reactions that are self replicating we are still not any closer to solving the problem of assembling the machinery of life into the intelligent order that they are in.

“. . . the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?”

Finally Mr. Riggins sums up his argument without apparently seeing his mistake in analogy. No, watches do not require miraculous intervention but they do require a creator. The human creator of course (in the analogy) is in the place of God. He succeeds, as other skeptics before him, in proving again the absolute necessity of a creator. As far as trying to prove through the watchmaker analogy that animals were created in their present forms he makes a good point. The analogy does not prove the method of creation, only the absolute necessity of a creator. The final form of the creation however came into being (either gradually are instantly), by necessity, as the result of intelligent intervention at some point.

The ability of chemical compounds to “assemble themselves” he incorrectly states proves the irrelevance of the watchmaker analogy but he again misses the point. The ability of chemicals to assemble themselves into more complex chemicals or shapes or patterns does not even solve the basic problem of a gear on a rotating shaft meshing with another gear in a perfect ratio necessary for just the beginning stages of watch assembly. Likewise, the ability of chemicals to interact spontaneously with others to form what we might call objects is analogous to a transmission case full of gears, tubes, clutches, nuts and bolts and various other parts that have been dropped into the case by the mechanic. Chemicals do not have the ability to “assemble themselves” into a fully functioning machine and the odds of that happening are about the same as those that would require a watch case full of a random assortment of gears and shafts etc. to assemble themselves into a fully functioning watch.

His assertion that “it only had to happen once” is also misleading. This argument is often used by atheists to try and show that given enough time anything is possible. Of course even in an infinity a watch case full of gears will never assemble themselves into a logical order necessary for keeping time. Likewise, no amount of time or varied circumstance will assemble any amount or combination of chemicals, energy or whatever into the information based machinery in even one cell.

The watchmaker analogy is still just as relevant as when it was first used to appeal to the common logic of man so that he could have is eyes opened to the absurd notion of some, that design exists without a designer.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Sorry that there is not enough "non evidence" to support the latest version of Darwinism.

It appears you don't even try to study "your enemy." PE != Darwinism.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Maybe you all can figure out what exactly it is that you all are looking for. Darwin said that transitions would support his theory, you and other punctuated equilibrium types say that you don't need the transitions (now that you haven't found them).

We can all depend on a creationist to resort to all kinds of logical fallacies. Notice that nobody, other than creationists, asserted we have no fossils of transitional forms. We just don't have as many as we like to have, but this is to be expected.

Once again, please dispense with your strawman.

Originally posted by Lincoln
So which is it? Are you looking for less evidence or more? Would absolutely no evidence prove your case?

Bad, bad Lincoln. One strawman is not enough, you need two.

Originally posted by Lincoln
In other words the theory is a joke. It is based on a lack of evidence because none was found.

Let me see. There are these fallacies:

1. Non sequitur
2. Hasty generalisation
3. Strawman

Just to name a few.

Better luck next time.