Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

That's not what was in the beginning, though. Strike one. Since you can get the same quantum effects absent the presence of any conscious observer I would say that is incorrect. Strike two. I don't consider matter obeying physical laws, even weird physical laws, to be "miraculous." Strike three.

Crash, you responded quick so I will answer, but you did not respond substantively.1. So you are claiming you understand more than Anton Zellinger? Personally, crash, if you aren't going to be serious, let's don't waste time talking to each other. The beginning of all things is in the Bible the Logos, and the root of all things in QM is information. If you cannot see the parallel, who cares frankly. Certainly, esteemed scientists like Zellinger see it.2. "Since you can get the same quantum effects absent the presence of any conscious observer I would say that is incorrect."Uh, wrong. There is an alternative theory concerning waves that flow backwards in time. Are you saying you accept that? The funny thing is you "would say this is incorrect" but the giants in the field disagree with you. Wonder why? It's humorous to see how evolutionist brag about scientific concensus until scientific consensus touches an area they don't like, then it's I don't agree. That supports my view, which grows evermore in these discussions, that maybe scientific concensus in the field of evolution/common descent is not based on objective reasoning.3. Uh, you have your term of miraculous, and I have mine. Miracles are a biblical concept in this context, and thus refer not to violations of the real laws of the physical universe, but instead rare events that seem to violate the everyday normal concepts on how things are, which occur due to an action of faith and spiritual consciousness. Jesus, in fact, claims faith works within the laws of the universe God sets up.Your own view of miracles aside, QM does offer strong support to the biblical concept of miracles.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 02:09 AM

randman responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since you can get the same quantum effects absent the presence of any conscious observer I would say that is incorrect.

---

​

Uh, wrong.

---

Incorrect. Crash is quite accurate in this.Perhaps you've heard of the two-slit experiment? It's where you take a beam of light and shine it toward a screen that has two slits very close together. On the other side of the screen is a photographic plate that records the light pattern that comes through.In classical physics, we are not surprised to find that with a continuous beam of light, we get an interference pattern on that plate. The waves of light passing through one slit interfere with the waves that are passing through the other and thus we get bands of light and dark.Now, suppose we were to reduce the intensity of the beam of light so that a single photon was shot at the slits every second. By classical physics, we should expect to get no interference bands. With only a single photon in the box at any given moment, there is no way that there can be any interference with that photon.But that isn't what we see. Instead, we get interference fringes just as if there were a continuous beam. It's as if the photon is passing through both slits and is interfering with itself. That's the common description that people learning basic physics are given to introduce the concepts of wave functions and the like.But there's more to learn. Suppose we were to put a detector in the system that would indicate which slit the photon goes through while allowing it to pass. What happens then?Suddenly, we lose the interference fringes.No consciousness involved, but by that act of mechanical observation we have affected the quantum state of the photons such that their waveforms have collapsed and rather than passing through both slits, they pass through only one.But wait, we're not done. We now introduce yet another machine to the setup that destroys the information of which slit it went through. What happens?We get the interference fringes back again. A mechanical device makes an observation and another mechanical device destroys the evidence of that observation and in both cases, the quantum state of the photons gets altered.What on earth makes you think that QM depends on consciousness?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

That would depend on the mechanism for the "poof" as you put it. If God has imbedded the creation with a mechanism He created to design and guide to a degree certain processes, or stated another way, to influence the physical world, then it may well be that mechanism is involved in other arenas, including evolution.

---

OK, so how do we tell the difference between a god-embedded mechanism created to design and guide certain processes and/or a god-influenced physical world, and random mutation combined with natural selection giving rise to the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?What positive evidence exists which shows that god is necessary for evolution to proceed?What positive evidence exists which shows that god is responsible for "guiding certain processes"?Which processes are you talking about, specifically?Are you saying that nothing would be different regarding the evidence for Evolution if God had poofed the first replicating life into existence? If not, then why do we need to include any mention of god at all, since it seems to not to be affecting anything?If you are saying something would be different, then what, specifically, would be different? What are the telltale signs or evidence left behind by god that are evidence of such guidence and influence?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-30-2005 08:26 AM

You didn't really present a substantial argument. Your whole thing is basically "hey, QM says there's information, and the Bible says the beginning was a word! Words are information, right?" All the while ignoring the actual definition of the term "information" as used in quantum mechanics.Law of Fives all over the place. Never heard of the guy, so I can't say, but it's pretty clear that I understand more than you. Ah, but of course, when that consensus can be mistakenly construed to support your position, suddenly the scientific consensus is unimpeachable?

"I feel abandoned and lonely!"

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

"What on earth makes you think that QM depends on consciousness?""Just the fact that's what the researchers indicate that is what they believe is going on. Take Leornard Mandel and his experiments, which developed the techniques to expand the 2-slit experiment and examine the process a little more, which you allude to. This is a comment he makes concerning one of the experiments he set up to try to determine whether merely changing the potential for knowledge could destroy the interference pattern, not merely mechanical instrusion."The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable," Mandel says. "http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.htmlOne poster here disputed Mandel's take on it, and I brought up that I hadn't read why entanglement was ruled out as causing this, but certainly, it can be said a lot of very bright quantum physics researchers do think an interaction or a potential for interaction with consciousness plays a determinative role.My understanding is another theory is being put forward, based on the math, which entails waves moving backwards in time. The idea is that it "works" mathematically if we do not rule out waves moving backwards in time.Personally, if there is someone who really understands the alternate theory, I would like to know how that would work in this experiment.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 12:58 PM

The word most often used is "observation". It seems in a lot of the literature this is used interchangably with "measurement". That is, if a macroscopic measurement is made the "weird" QM behavior vanishes. The measurement does not have to be read out right away.The experiments you describe all have measureing devices that are capable of interferring with the results. If you call haveing a macroscopic interaction with the system under test an observation then no intelligence is involved in "collapsing the wave function".Remember that the wave function is just as much a mathematical device to prodcue very accurate predications as using math with backwards in time traveling influences. Neither of them may describe what is "really" going on(whatever "really" means) but as long as they work then no problem.Green in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" suggests that time doesn't flow at all. That it is all "there" in some way. With that view then going backwards in time doesn't sound so nuts.

It is not clear Mr. N. Ned that the your post or many previous ones are on topic.If the thread doesn't get tied back to the topic very soon it will have to be given a temporary closure.

quote:

---

OK, so how do we tell the difference between a god-embedded mechanism created to design and guide certain processes and/or a god-influenced physical world, and random mutation combined with natural selection giving rise to the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?

---

That would probably be a forensics question. I think the ID paper published last year that caused such a fuss touches on that, but there could be other indications as well. For example, presumably God would have intelligence and consciousness so any indications that matter is connected to intelligence and consiousness would be an indication that there might be a fundamental process embedded in creation.In other words, there could be discoveries and I would argue that there are, which by their nature, fit well into explaining a theorized mechanism for how "God-did-it." In fact, we even be able to duplicate those mechanisms, and involve qualities and aspects that by their nature are also qualities generally attributed to God.Note the following.

quote:

---

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

---

- Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning Father of Quantum TheoryWhat the Bleep Do We Know!? | Page not foundBefore going into more on the other questions, it would be preferable to reach a resolution on the above. Is it reasonable and logical to think "behing this force [is] is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

Ned, I agree that time does not flow. Time is an indication there is a larger structure, invisible, that consists of the universe. I am not dismissive of the transverse way idea, but I am not convinced it rules out all consciousness-based interpretations of QM effects.Maybe sometime someone will start a thread discussing the parallels between QM and spirituality, and we can discuss this.This week probably will not be good for me though.

randman, why do we care what a physicist has to say about biology?You don't ask your tax attorney to do your heart transplant, do you? Even though he's a really smart person? You don't ask your cardiologist to install copper plumbing, do you? You don't ask your plumber to help redesign the traffic pattern downtown, do you? You don't ask the city public works planners to do your taxes, do you?All of these people are brilliant but when they speak outside their area of expertise, you consider the possibility that they don't know what they're talking about.That said, all you have done is show that scientists are not atheists. We've been saying this all along. The study of science does not lead one to atheism. The fact that science is the study of natural explanations for natural phenomena doesn't preclude the existence of god. You will never find in any scientific publication a paper that starts, "Because there is no god...," or ends, "Thus, there is no god."You seem to be saying that evolution cannot exist if there is god. Are you claiming that god cannot create life that evolves?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

In other words, there could be discoveries and I would argue that there are, which by their nature, fit well into explaining a theorized mechanism for how "God-did-it."

---

Excellent.What is this theory, what are some predictions of the theory, how is it testable, and what are it's potential falsifications?Don't answer here, though.There are several ID threads already going that you could answer them in, or propose a new one.

Rhhain, I never quoted physicists concerning the field of biology.Is your impression that I have?Nevertheless, physics is pertinent to biology and particularly debates about what constitutes "naturalism" or "material" and the proper review of science. The claims have been made that science cannot address certain things, such as spiritual tradition's view of reality, when in fact quantum physics has already been testing for those principles for over 80 years, albeit not with the intent of verifying spiritual perspectives on reality. Physicists just happened to come upon these principles through empirical observations, experiments, etc,....something evolutionists have long claimed was impossible.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 04:55 PM

quote:

---

Creationists compose between a third and half of the US population,

---

Where did you get this statistic, through where I have been, and what I have seen, I know only a few creationists, that give life much thought, and don't go by the term "if you believe creation stories are true, then that means you're a creationist". The term "creationist" is really there to describe someone trying to prove biblical passages to be true, more specifically the first book, aptly titled Genesis. The people you talk about simply accept creation on the basis of disagreements with the predominant theory, or partiality to the truth contained in the Bible. Statistics such as these are not very truthful usually, are based on preconceived notions, agendas, and false premises. My Bio teacher gave my brother the book : "Bones of Contention". The author wrote about exactly this material.

quote:

---

and yet only a tiny fraction of the scientific community (at best, a few percent) (anyone have any exact statistics here? It's been a while, and I don't have time to track down the latest survey results). This should tell you something.

---

You didn't finish the thought, but I get the picture. You probably meant to say something like:"and yet only a fraction of the sci. community believes that the creation passage written a very long time ago to be true."And why should this be something of intrigue, debate, and even skepticism? The scientific community, probably refferring to the people that read journals, and magazines about science should not be bothered with an old story that when applied factually, or fundamentally to life's origin, makes a great deal of science and observation truly useless. This would make the scientific community quite uncomfortable as they recline to read the latest on geological finds in support of their lovely theories, Such a simple, easy to read, and highly avalible story, that most of America is in the 'know' about, ranks with Dr. Seuss, and Greek Mythology, is against what they have become fond of hearing about, proving, providing evidence for, and degrading themselves, with the ranks of organisms, not included in phylum chordata makes life more meaningful than the belief that humans will drift away eventually. Maybe I enjoy the possibility of being much more important than what my bio teacher would tell me, maybe I know that there is a little more to life than scientific reasoning, rational thinking and these secular traditions making what we know as creation the laughing stock of this communtity, well the community means nothing to me, or the few who have taken the path to righteousness, who have attained much more glory than any human who found "lucy" could ever have.

---

porteus@gmail.com