Moving towards an ID mechanism.

The argument (in the article) seems a little dubious to me. The author seemed to expect that mutations would only be found when there is a selective advantage. But I would expect mutations to be found as long as there isn't a significant selective disadvantage. And I think that is similar to your point (your most logical explanation).

I'm curious - you always present that as a rationale for believing some cockamamie magic story about the universe, anything that confirms your pseudoreligious musings about the origin of life, but when it comes to evolution, one of the most widely-accepted and proven theories in science, the fact that "there appears to be many scientists that accept the phenomenon as real" doesn't seem to make an impression on you.In fact, quite the opposite - it's widespread acceptance proves to you that it's all just a conspiracy.Can you explain the inconsistency?

First off, to be honest with you crash, I think your are actually doing what you accuse me of doing and writing off physicists, some giants in the field, such as Wheeler, as advocating magic or cockamamie ideas. It shows you don't understand their theories.On the subject of adaptive mutations, I have not studied enough to know to discount the opinion of the experts here. WK linked to that study, and I trust his opinion of whether this is "on the table" as a legitimate idea or whether it's cockamamie as you put it.On the topic of evolution, that is where I have given a great study to see if the data and facts are what evos claim they are, and in my opinion, they are not. So I feel comfortable rejecting it based on the fact it seems largely based on misrepresentations.I have a request of you from this point out on this thread. If you want to discuss the OP concerning a potential ID mechanism in QM, and specifically the It from Bit model of explaining physical phenomena, please do so. But if you cannot discuss these ideas because you do not understand them, please take the time to understand them first. So far, you seem unaware of what Wheeler and others are talking about.Or, if you just want to pop in and comment on the areas you do know something, that's fine too, but don't pretend scientific theories you know nothing about are cockamamie just because you have a hard time understanding them.As far as the study WK linked to, I think the basic claim that quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics plays a governing role in mutations due to the scope involved is worth determining if that is accurate or not. If it is accurate, then we should be discussing mutations in light of QM, and it's not a cockamamie idea regardless of whether adaptive mutations have been shown to be real or not.

Oh, I'm the first to admit that QM models largely are over my head.But here's the thing. Are we talking about Wheeler's ideas, or yours? If we're just talking about yours, I don't believe that you're any better informed than I am. Nobody who believes that the evidence for evolution is "overstated" could be all that well informed in regards to scientific issues.If it's Wheeler's ideas we're talking about, let's see you substantiate that he's made claims about QM as a mechanism for intelligent intervention in the universe. If it's just your ideas riffing off of his, then don't wave his credentials around like they give you credibility.

Hi randman The It from Bit model is the idea that the existence of physical entities arises from apparatus-elicited answers to binary (yes/no) questions. The number of bits that are necessary to describe an entity is the information content of that entity. So the idea is that the physical existence of an entity arises from the information content of the entity. I found a quote from Wheeler hereMy understanding is that in the photon experiments, information content is imposed upon the photon by measuring it in such a way as it is forced to give a binary response to the act of observation. The mechanism by which information content is imposed on the photon is in the way that the experimental apparatus has been designed to elicit a binary reponse. (I'm going to use the word "imposed"; perhaps "elicited" or something else is better but bear with me).If we are to try to apply this idea to the origin of form in biology, then we would need to be able to specify the mechanism by which information content is imposed on (or elicited from) biological existence. For example, Intelligent Design advocates might say that the bacterial flagellum, or Cetaceans, or the blood clotting system, have been designed rather than evolved.If "it from bit" provided a mechanism for the design of these biological forms, we would need to know:a) who is the observer?b) what is being observed? In the case of the design of Cetaceans, for example, what physical entities are being observed in such a way as to impose information content on them such that a whale pops into existence? In the case of the design of the blood clotting system, what is being observed and having information content imposed upon it such that a load of novel genes and their interactions pop into existence?c) what is the experimental apparatus that permits this kind of extermely complex information content to be elicited as a set of binary responses? What measurement apparatus would I need to be able to observe a bacterium in such a way that it suddenly grows a flagellum?I'm no physicist so I have no intention of arguing with Wheeler. My only problem with your OP is that this idea of "it from bit" isn't actually a mechanism as far as the origin of biological form is concerned, because the observer, observed and apparatus are all "black boxes".MickThis message has been edited by mick, 11-22-2005 12:41 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 11-22-2005 12:45 PM

The It from Bit is Wheeler's idea that others have adopted as well, such as experimenters like Zeilinger who has had some remarkable success and the physicists he mentors.Though Wheeler's promotion of ideas like the anthropomorphic principle can seem like ID, he really is not, to my knowledge, directly involved in discussing ID versus evolution, and I think he probably accepts evolution, but maybe if we learned of his beliefs in more detail, they could appear a little different than TOE models.For example, this has been said of Wheeler, but not sure it is right, that he would say the universe evolved along all the potential paths possible in a multitude of states, all present, a multi-verse, until consciousness evolved and collapsed that multi-verse into one state. Now, whether he still thinks that or not, it gives you some inkling of what he things QM demonstrates about the fundamental princples of the universe.So the application of these ideas to ID may or may not be held by the physicists discussing the ideas, but unless you try to get a grasp of the concepts, you cannot really assess whether they are applicable to ID or not, can you?

Yep. That's it and stated better than I my attempt. Well, in a way, that is jumping the gun, imo. First, I think we just need to get a good grasp of the idea itself, which contains within it the idea that the physical form, the "answer", something takes is in response to the way it is questioned. If you know that, then there is potentially an ability to directly engineer form, physicality, from the primary information state that defines and provides parameters to reality.Wheeler's analogy of the 20 questions game is relevant here. Normally, the answer is a given, but here the answer is not given, just the range. The correct response depends on the question asked. So the universe is the one responding, and it has not one but many possible answers.The observer asks a question which forms a response that is now the correct response but didn't was not the correct one prior. That process repeats itself with the next question until out of the 20 questions, a correct answer has formed.The fallacy of science before QM was to think that the answer was the same all along before the questions were asked. This is really what Wheeler is getting at, to a degree.So in this process, we can see how intelligence can manipulate the process to make certain answers appear instead of others, to make certain physical responses appear rather than others; hence an ID mechanism in my opinion. It is not therefore necessary to show who the Observer was since we have shown the mechanism and effect.We can infer gravity, test for it, etc,..without ever being able to show gravity directly, and that's we do, or did, depending on whether one believes gravity waves have been discovered. We don't insist no theory of gravity is valid because it is not directly known what gravity is, only what it does. In fact, by showing an ID mechanism, we show more than what we can demonstrate with gravity. All we can show with gravity is the effects of it.We still don't know what it is, or didn't until a few years ago (assuming the gravity wave claims are correct).

In response to this 2nd half of your post, let me first say I am going to be cut short here due to time constraints, and may not be back until Monday.On the claim that the "observed" is a black box, I think that's clearly wrong as what is observed is physical reality. On the topic of Observer, Max Plank in response to studying quantum mechanics reflected on the basic Information state which is fundamental existence this way. Sounds a lot like ID, doesn't it. My point then is first to see that this basic ID mechanism is not just relevant to creating new species, but is part and parcel of fundamental existence. The transfer from information superpositional states into a single state in physical form is something that is always occuring, always present, and is how things are and work, at least how I am reading this.So the third question is what about the apparatus? My first response is we don't exactly the evolutionary paths of many things, but evos claim they nonetheless evolved. They don't know the apparatus but merely point to a mechanism of mutations and variations being selected for.So let's look at the It from Bit. The apparatus need not be anything more than the surrounding world itself, just influenced by an Intelligent Designer. This would be more like super-evolution where evolution is how things came to be, but aided by this ID mechanism. So QM would be used to produce non-random mutations to direct evolution in a manner that would not occur otherwise.But at the same time, we can't ignore other potential implications here, considering the parallels with concepts we consider a Designer having, such as intelligence.For example, where does the Information come from? I think all too often the unspoken assumption is that the physical is there, and then we study the information about it as if the information is secondary or an aspect to the thing itself with the physical aspect being primary. What QM shows is that the physical aspect is not even necessarily present all the time, at least not in a defined state, whereas the informational aspect exists well-defined all the time as a multiple of potentials.I need to bone up a little on physics, but it's sort of like saying the physical state is a mere by-product of the fundamental virtual state of all things.So what creates the fundamental virtual state?Is it reasonable to infer that it is likely that an Intelligent Designer could create within that virtual state something new and directly produce it in the physical world?If that is considered unreasonable, what if we discover how to do that and actually directly engineer some aspect of reality? Would that be sufficient evidence of ID?

Hi randman,I'm replying here to your posts 53 and 52. That sounds very similar to the rather odd premise of ID that we don't need to know who the designer is. We are not actually left with a mechanism at all - we are left with wishful thinking: an unknown and unknowable intelligent designer manipulates the quantum structure of the universe through an undescribed mechanism in order to make bacteria grow flagella. It's simply not very satisfying. Strictly speaking it is not even an explanation. Look, events at the quantum level do not incorporate "the whole universe". Quantum events occur at the submicroscopic level. At the macroscopic level (i.e. a few dozens of nanometers) the quantum effect resolves into classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics is pretty useless at letting us predict where a tennis ball will land when it's hit in a certain direction with a certain force. Quantum events will not be "relevant to creating new species" simply because the wave function of an object the size of a living organism is, compared to the size of the that organism's world, unutterably tiny. The wave function that describes the possible superpositions of quantum entities works at the level of subatomic particles; at the level of chickens or rabbits it is irrelevant and classical mechanics maintains. That isn't a response to my question, it's a claim about the quality of evolutionary biology. That's a standard ID strategy - when somebody asks a difficult question, attack Darwin! But in any case it's irrelevant, because "measurement apparatus" and "observation" are not a part of evolutionary theory. You've let the cat out of the bag there (or should I say "you've let the cat out of the box" ) The only reason why the "it from bit" theory is of any succour to proponents of ID is that they believe it necessitates the existence of a conscious, intelligent observer. Quantum mechanics is simply seen as a "God-friendly" theory and that's why it's claimed to be part of the ID mechanism.Does quantum mechanics require the existence of a conscious observer in order for the physical form of entities to be made apparent? I don't think so. First of all because quantum events are resolved into classical mechanics at the macroscopic level (so the wave function must collapse "naturally" at some point. For example if I hold a brick in my hand, it appears to manifest itself as a physical entity with distinct physical properties without my observing every single electron, neutron and proton in order for them to become real). Second (and I'm not certain about this one) because the "observer" is surely any entity that causes a wave function to resolve itself - and couldn't that be an inanimate object such as a photographic plate or some equipment left running in a lab without conscious agents being present?MickThis message has been edited by mick, 11-22-2005 02:52 PM

Due to time constraints, I can't respond to the whole post in as much depth as I want, but your statement is shown to be wrong already by the example of how science treats gravity, or treated gravity. We know gravity exists purely by studying it's effects. We don't know "the who" of what gravity is. We guessed it was gravity waves, but either never detected such waves or did not for many years (I understand in the past few years there are some claims to have detected gravity waves). Can you prove that? Wheeler and Zeilinger think they do. But the governing factor for reproduction is DNA which is currently being argued is governed by quantum mechanics in the paper WK cited. At best, your argument is that QM would be more supportive of guided evolution via ID assistance than creating whole creatures from scratch. Imo though, you still cannot elimenate the latter possibility due the reasons given in my posts earlier. No, it's not irrevalent. Classical mechanics works because of the high statistical predictive probability, but it's not absolute. The concept of the It from Bit is that the whole universe itself and everything in it is based to some degree "at the bottom of everything" on QM principles.Just stating Wheeler and Zeilinger are wrong isn't going to cut it. Why do you think they are wrong? No, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of holding your critics' theory to a higher evidentiary standard than you hold your own. No, quantum mechanics is a highly accurate theory that changes the paradigm of how we view physical reality, and evolutionary theories are thus out of date if they do not incorporate QM into evolutionary theory. It's not just that it is God-friendly. It's that it defines physical things as first virtual, or as Wheeler says "undefined" and "unreal." Obviously, Wheeler disagrees. Not saying he is automatically right, but clearly he states things only exist in an immaterial, undefined state until observation or the potential for observation. He even makes the point that our observations today affect what happened in the past. That's his claim.I think before you write it off, you need to give it a fair hearing.This message has been edited by randman, 11-22-2005 04:42 PM

yeah okay, I'll read up on this stuff.mick

Randman, it would take far more time than I have to talk you through all of this, so let me put it briefly.All of the "weirdness" of QM is down to physical interpretation of the mathematics. There are ways of interpreting the meaning of the mathematics of QM, and these interpretations give rise to different ideas, such as those of Wheeler (and I am more than intimately familiar with his ideas on this and with most of his other work) and Penrose and many many others.All of these interpretations are connected by one common thread... they all rest on the undelying mathematics. If it is not in the mathematics, it is not in the interpretation. There is NOTHING in the mathematics that allows for an ID mechanism. It is a purely deterministic theory, and does not conjure up magic.Entanglement may appear weird, and certainly does to a layperson, but there is nothing mysterious in it. It is just a fact of our universe. Despite what you may have read, it does not imply superluminary anything, nor imply that the theories of relativity are flawed, nor that the universe is just too damn wierd for us to understand. It is certainly the antithesis of common sense, but thank God the universe is not built on common sense.If God wants to guide evolution by manipulating random mutations, I assume He is at liberty so to do. He does not require "weird" mechanisms of quantum mechanics to hide behind.

That would be some variant of theistic evolution. You might have misunderstood randman, for he is no theistic evolutionist.What randman seems to claim, is that new creatures can just poof into existence without any evolution. See, for example, Message 114 and other messages in that thread. Presumably randman wants his proposed ID mechanism to be able to account for this alleged poofing.

Exactly, something completely indistinguishable from physical evolutionary principles. Theistic evolution is purely a matter of faith. Don't worry, I do not misunderstand Randman What I am saying is that QM holds no answers or mechanisms for "poofing". If you want "poofs" then you have to go elsewhere... preferably far away.

Cavediver, with all due respect, just coming and making unsupported statements because you don't have time, explaining the math shows this or that, is simply avoiding some of most basic concepts within QM, at least the interpretations discussed on this thread. I realize that math is very important. At the same time, the neat thing about QM is that the double-split experiment and related delayed-choice experiments are experiments with real objects, not just mathematical concepts.You seem to be avoiding that entirely, and you also don't seem to understand what I, nor Wheeler is talking about. I know you should since you are educated in this field and could probably explain Wheeler's words in everyday language, but you prefer to just make bare assertions hiding behind the math.No one is claiming QM is magic, but it is the study of what matter and energy are at it's fundamental level. The fact you think anyone has invoked magic suggests you don't understand their claims.Why not take their claims seriously? That matter and energy are quantized because information is quantized.One thing Wheeler is very clear on, and I beleive is solidly supported by the evidence, and that is the fundamental state of things prior to observation is undefined, which to me suggests the fundamental "physical" state is non-material and informational, and discrete or somewhat discrete physical form is a derived property from that information state. That's not invoking magic, but laying out the process whereby physical matter exists.Why are you dodging that issue?