It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Look up John Bell and hidden variable theory to understand better.

a reply to: Peeple

What is the biochemical mechanism for biodiversity emerging from a universal common ancestor. I'm not calling speciation, adaptation, or natural selection into question. Its Universal Common Descent that remains unproven.

a reply to: Vector99

I'm aware of Bell's theorem, but again, a quantum effect should not have significant influence in a series of coin tosses. Unless you wish to somehow tie this into quantum biology, maybe you should start a thread on the subject of non-determinism in classical physics systems...

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

? They're one and the same thing. In the beginning was the cyanobacteria, it created oxygen allowing speciation, adaption and natural selection for more complex life forms.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If you are aware of Bell's theorem, you are also aware that randomness exists.

Wait, re-reading your post, it seems like you think hidden variable theory is Bell's theorem? It's not.

a reply to: Vector99

This is a totally different topic, but I'll tell you what I think. What we call quantum randomness is the volition of the Designer/Observer. Its not a matter of hidden variables, its a matter of the Designer's free will.

However, quantum randomness has a negligible effect in most classical systems. Entropy is a probabilistic process, yet on the macro scale, in a controlled environment, a cup of boiling water will always take the same amount of time to reach thermal equilibrium.

In the macro scale, there is no randomness aside from the volition of sentient creatures. All macro scale randomness is the product of unknown variables.

So again, Bell's theorem pertains to the quantum scale, which usually has a negligible effect on the macro scale (unless you're talking about radio-active decay). If this weren't the case, experiments would not be repeatable.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

This was your original statement

Because there is no such thing as random, there is only simplicity, complexity, and immeasurable complexity.

You know that is wrong, I showed you it was wrong, you understand it's wrong, and now you are jumping through hoops to prove it right.

Have a good day, I don't like talking to brick walls.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




Have a good day, I don't like talking to brick walls.

Thank you.

originally posted by: scojak

Ok, but what about a billion trillion monkeys over the course of 14 billion years? Randomness, given enough time, will create perfection.

It is logical that the ordered world we see around us was formed by something more intelligent than random interaction. Do you think a Boeing Jet, a Mac Computer, or even a garage door opener could form at random? It is much more sensible to admit that these machines have a designer.

a reply to: cooperton

It is much more sensible to admit that these machines have a designer.

Does anyone deny that?
I mean, I know this is ATS and all, but really?

originally posted by: Phage

Does anyone deny that?
I mean, I know this is ATS and all, but really?

Yes, many on here fervently believe that biological machines were created through random processes. They even defend it with extreme zeal, as if it was a cause worth fighting for.

a reply to: cooperton

A Boeing jet is not a biological machine. Nor is a computer of any model. Nor is a garage door opener.

Do you think a Boeing Jet, a Mac Computer, or even a garage door opener could form at random? It is much more sensible to admit that these machines have a designer.

a reply to: Phage

You're dismissing the analogy, and therefore missing the point. A single biological cell is far more complex than a Boeing jet or a computer. If such simple machinery requires a designer, how much more a biological system?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You're dismissing the analogy, and therefore missing the point.

Yes. Because it is a strawman argument. A logical fallacy which can be dismissed. There is no claim in evolutionary theory that evolution is the result of random events.

Do you think a Boeing Jet, a Mac Computer, or even a garage door opener could form at random? It is much more sensible to admit that these machines have a designer.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

playin devils advocate here...


IF simple cells are far more complex then our most advanced computers...

yet we actually use the simplest computers to run our most advanced machinery...

can you not see that its only a matter of time?

a reply to: Phage


Perhaps, but Cooperton's comment was about abiogenesis, not evolution.

a reply to: Akragon

A matter of time before we integrate with machines and become the Borge, and resistance will be futile? Sure, why not?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No. It was about jets and stuff.

Do you think a Boeing Jet, a Mac Computer, or even a garage door opener could form at random? It is much more sensible to admit that these machines have a designer.

I admit it. Boeing jets, computers of any brand, and garage door openers have designers.

Happy?

a reply to: Phage

I don't know, are you qualified to admit that?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

A matter of time before we integrate with machines and become the Borge, and resistance will be futile? Sure, why not?

nah... we got kirk and Spork.. and all the guardians of the galaxy….

that tree guy...