Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: midicon

Particles don't need to 'know' anything. If we connect two items and make an alteration to one that affects the other, said items don't need to know. It's just a consequence of a change of circumstance.

You really need to re-read what I posted. I was talking about previously entangled particles being separated physically with no physical connections whatsoever and no matter how far apart what happens to one of the previously entangled particles is known by the other and reacts accordingly instantly.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Arthur Conan Doyle

Arthur Conan Doyle Quote

If you don't understand a concept of Quantum mechanics perhaps you shouldn't say anything about it. Or at least try to comprehend what is being said/written, and if you don't understand instead of being smug just ask nicely or you risk being shown a mumbling fool who has a big problem with reading comprehension.

originally posted by: midicon
Let me stop you there because that makes sense although your use of the word 'communication' is misleading. In fact if you replace it with 'connection' you wouldn't have needed the second sentence. Or indeed the following nonsense.

Here you go again. Not understanding that the two previously entangled particles have no physical connections whatsoever and no matter how far apart they are what happens to one is known by the other and reacts accordingly as if they were still connected. Yet they have no physical connection.

originally posted by: midicon
It doesn't follow that because we don't understand how entangled particles are connected that intelligence is involved. They aren't 'communicating' in the way you claim and make absolutely no case for intelligence, God or whatever.

Your reading comprehension is the only problem for your lack of understanding what I was talking about.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think there is a connection. It might be that things in the sub atomic realm behave differently and the connection need not be physical. That doesn't matter anyway, just because something isn't understood it doesn't have to have intelligence behind it.

a reply to: whereislogic

What's more, if there was any truth to these large leaps in evolution we would be seeing them today at least in some species if not all of them. Yet we don't see this. Why? Why did "these large steps in evolution stop"? The answer should be obvious. Because they never happened. At least not "accidentally" as some are trying to claim.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: tanstaafl

He's saying specifically that trillions of mutations are not needed simultaneously, because it would be a gradual transformation.

I know, but he is simply either ignoring or totally missing the fact that simultaneously is the only way that any single mutation can even have a chance of actually being reinforced through species propagation and thus become permanent.

Otherwise, each and every one of these mutations would simply be one-offs, in just that one individual, never to be seen again - unless/until it shows up randomly ... again.

But the thing is, if it were even possible, most biological functions would theoretically require vast numbers of beneficial mutations to come to be. Given that the likelihood of just one beneficial mutation is:

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
source

This is only the odds to change one functional group in a protein subunit... This would barely make an impact on function, so you would need many of these to hit in order to get any sort of novel biochemical function. Not to mention the difficulty for protein alterations to cause a deeper morphological change. For example, there's no gene that simply adds relevant neuronal mass to the brain. The mechanisms are much more complex than we understand at the moment, which is making 'random chance' less likely day by day

Exactly, and thanks for adding some more technical bits.

It is just as crazy to believe that all life on earth evolved from primordial ooze as it is to believe the literal story of creation as described in the bible.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think there is a connection. It might be that things in the sub atomic realm behave differently and the connection need not be physical. That doesn't matter anyway, just because something isn't understood it doesn't have to have intelligence behind it.

Yet how does one previously entangled particle reacts exactly to the action the other is put through? How does it know when there is no physical connection how to react? Why is the reaction instantly no matter how far apart they are? There is a connection, but that connection/aka "spooky action" is not physical anymore.

As for your claim that they do not communicate instantly?

By Eliza StricklandAug 13, 2008 9:37 PM

Of all the weirdness in the universe, the quantum mechanics phenomenon called "entanglement" may be the most mind-boggling. Physicists have long shaken their heads at the theory that two particles that become entangled will always and instantly mirror each other's properties, no matter how far they are separated, which seems to go against all other physical understanding.
...
But a new study shows that if some hidden signal is passing between the separated particles, it would have to travel at 10,000 times the speed of light. As this explanation seems impossible, the research team favors the alternate, weirder idea:

that a measurement on one photon instantly influences the other...
...
The study, published in the journal Nature [subscription required], shows that the particles did indeed mirror each other's properties at the exact same moment even though they were 11 miles apart. The research team says their finding disproves the more comprehensible hypothesis--that the particles were sending signals at faster-than-light speed--and instead supports the stranger theory of instant communication. Dr Terence Rudolph of Imperial College, London, remarks that "any theory that tries to explain quantum entanglement... will need to be very spooky - spookier, perhaps, than quantum mechanics itself"
...

Entangled Particles Seem to Communicate Instantly—and Befuddle Scientists

You know, for a while now I have had several ATS members who also react to some of my comments, or even use my avatar as if I was an idiot who doesn't understand science, or in this case quantum mechanics. Similar to how ATS member "Peeple" has responded here claiming anyone who thinks differently than her must be an idiot, or "dumb."

Anyway, in fact there is research being done in scientific circles, such as MIT, in which these topics are being discussed including the possibility the universe is "electromagnetic."

Here is one article from "Livescience" in which apart from discussing "The electromagnetic Universe theory" Michu Kaku discusses the notion you are trying to postulate here about "sub atomic realm behave differently and the connection need not be physical."

...
There are 60 sub-atomic particles they have discovered that can explain the thousands of other sub-atomic particles, and the model is too ugly. This is my analogy: it's like Scotch tape and taping a giraffe to a mule to a whale to a tiger and saying this is the theory of particles....... We have so many particles that Oppenheimer once said you could give a Nobel Prize to the physicist that did not discover a particle that year. We were drowning in sub-atomic particles.... (Michio Kaku)
...

The Electromagnetic Universe : A New Theory

You see, the answer to the "spooky action" and other subjects in Quantum mechanics, or physics need not be too complex. The "Unified Theory of everything" aka "The Grand Unified Theory of Everything" could have been staring us all along but no one was brave enough to put it forward. A higher intelligence, God/Elohim, could be the answer and imo it is the answer. The glue that puts everything together and keeps it together.

I am sure by now you have seen the image of a mouse's brain cell and the image of the recreation of how the Universe evolved and grew which looks the exact same as a human/animal brain cell.

Why is it so impossible for so many people to accept the concept that a higher intelligence, God/Elohim, could be the answer to everything? Scientists have tried every single theory, and postulated any and every idea/theory possible yet we have not been able to find the answer. Yet the answer could have been there all along but some people's egos are so huge that they cannot accept the most logical answer to what could be "The Unified Theory of Everything" aka Elohim/God. A Higher intelligence/being that connects everything that exists, has always existed, and will exist infinitely and connects everything.

Even other cultures/ways of life such as Buddhism talk about a connection of the smallest subatomic particle, humans, animals, insects, and everything else that exists throughout the universe/multiverses. But for some unexplained reason even though the answer is right there as well for them, Buddhist monks continue to claim there is no God. I should know as part of my growth process was taking refuge with a Buddhist monk who taught me a lot about Buddhism, although I never did take the vows to be a Buddhist monk. But even they stop at the point that "everything is connected" but do not want to cross the threshold and accept the possibility that what holds everything together, the answer to it all is a higher intelligence, God/Elohim.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
"If you disagree, by all means, posit precisely how man could 'emerge' from some primordial ooze without it."

Your 'logic' is very very wrong.

Now that is what I call an extraordinarily precise, cogent, powerful, lucid argument...

Rotflmao!

Say it with me... "I don't know"...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

You mean this experiment? Where they starved bacteria since 2020. I do agree, and the question to ask is why can't we get an elephant from bacteria after 2 whole years...lol geez

You sure the hell take something and just make your own story about it to fit, don't you.

Strawman. Even if E. Coli became anything besides E. Coli it could show evolution is possible. But there is nothing to show such a thing is possible. They started the experiment way before 2020.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If you want to belive that feel free.

The overwhelming evidence is in favour of evolution.

Yet it's never been shown to be a possible mechanism for the origin of species. Your faith is commendable, given that there is no reproducible experiment to prove any of it.

Notice how your main argument is "look at all the evidence", yet you can't point to any experiment that shows a population Of organisms actually evolving into something different. If E. Coli can't become any other microbe besides E. Coli after 73,000 generations, then it's safe to say it's not possible.

originally posted by: cooperton

Strawman. Even if E. Coli became anything besides E. Coli it could show evolution is possible. But there is nothing to show such a thing is possible. They started the experiment way before 2020.

The experiment started in 2020 and ended with the pandemic, I Googled your numbers to see what you were talking about. It was also not about evolution, but I guess you and whatever site you listen to jumped on it.

a reply to: whereislogic

That's a helluva post, but you snipped the part where I said "back then" meaning (upon discovery) of the remains in the neander valley.

All that's going to take some time to go thru, I'll get back to ya.

a reply to: Xtrozero

God did it... that's a good an explanation as any. It's sweet, simple, romantic and rational.

We're special, and I like to think so... it helps me respect my neighbor even when they want to kill me with f15 war fighting planes.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The experiment started in 2020 and ended with the pandemic, I Googled your numbers to see what you were talking about. It was also not about evolution, but I guess you and whatever site you listen to jumped on it.

You don't have to show such a large step in evolution. If changes in evolution transforming monkeys to humans were real there wouldn't be large gaps between a species evolution. What's more, I have already stated that Earth is 70% water, yet humans did not evolve to be underwater ocean dwellers.

If accidental and large-scale evolution steps were real then humanoid species would have been formed to live underwater and not on land because Earth is 70% water. Most of the world's food is in our oceans/seas, and since Earth is a water planet humanoids should have developed to live underwater through "accidental evolution." The fact that humans, the most advanced species on Earth, formed to be land dwellers would suggest that "intelligent design" let us to be land dwellers.

I do know one thing, that is illogical to exclude the possibility.

Time is very short and we are all going to find out eventually. But maybe sone people don't wish to have any type of continued existence?

I don't believe God is some deity in the sky watching my every move waiting to punish me, im only human... but those who do have that complex kind of makes me wonder what they're up to or if they have something to hide?

It's illogical to exude the possibility even if it is small that there is continued existence just because you can't remember anything from before you were born.

It's a fascinating concept... I for one am a believer.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Yet, are you even aware of Newton's Third Law of motion"?

"For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."

You can think of it as karma. Everything we do, every action we take and everything we think will have a counter reaction. Whether you feel it the same day, or 10 years in the future it will happen.

Thought is energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed by humans or animals. So if you dwell in evil thoughts what do you think the reaction would be? "You will reap what you sow."

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

You don't have to show such a large step in evolution. If changes in evolution transforming monkeys to humans were real there wouldn't be large gaps between a species evolution. What's more, I have already stated that Earth is 70% water, yet humans did not evolve to be underwater ocean dwellers.

If accidental and large-scale evolution steps were real then humanoid species would have been formed to live underwater and not on land because Earth is 70% water. Most of the world's food is in our oceans/seas, and since Earth is a water planet humanoids should have developed to live underwater through "accidental evolution." The fact that humans, the most advanced species on Earth, formed to be land dwellers would suggest that "intelligent design" let us to be land dwellers.

Every time I read your posts like this it tells me you really have no clue, and you don't want to, so why bother? There will be the fastest, biggest, strongest, smartest... Who says we are the smartest...

Here is a start... look into why we can get hernias

Take the male spermatic cord. This tube connects the testes, in the scrotum, to the urethra, in the penis. In so doing, it forms a path for sperm to exit the body. The scrotum lies adjacent to the penis, so you would think that the best design would take the shortest course, a straight shot between the two structures. Not so. The spermatic cord ascends from the scrotum, then loops inside the pubic bone, descends through an opening below the hip joints and finally travels to the urethra inside the penis. This path—a historical legacy—is as much a source of vexation for medical students to understand as it is for the human males who suffer certain kinds of hernias because of it.

To make sense of our own bodies, we need to examine the history we share with everything from microbes and worms to fish and primates. In the case of the spermatic cord, human gonads begin development in a similar way to those of sharks, fish and other bony animals. The gonads—ovaries in females and testes in males—originally form high up in the human body, near the liver, presumably because the interactions between the tissues that develop into the gonads occur there. In adult sharks and fish, the gonads typically remain up near the liver. They probably stay in this ancestral configuration because their sperm can develop within the confines of the body cavity itself.

Fish make sperm inside their bodies to keep it warm, humans make it outside to keep them cool, BUT our pluming is still closely related to the fish.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
"If you disagree, by all means, posit precisely how man could 'emerge' from some primordial ooze without it."

Your 'logic' is very very wrong.

Now that is what I call an extraordinarily precise, cogent, powerful, lucid argument...

Rotflmao!

Say it with me... "I don't know"...

It's wrong for the reasons already covered.

You argument that trillions of simultaneous changes are required across the population is not part of evolution.

Either you are constructing a very flammable strawman ot you genuinely don't understand evolution at all.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

You don't have to show such a large step in evolution. If changes in evolution transforming monkeys to humans were real there wouldn't be large gaps between a species evolution. What's more, I have already stated that Earth is 70% water, yet humans did not evolve to be underwater ocean dwellers.

If accidental and large-scale evolution steps were real then humanoid species would have been formed to live underwater and not on land because Earth is 70% water. Most of the world's food is in our oceans/seas, and since Earth is a water planet humanoids should have developed to live underwater through "accidental evolution." The fact that humans, the most advanced species on Earth, formed to be land dwellers would suggest that "intelligent design" let us to be land dwellers.

Every time I read your posts like this it tells me you really have no clue, and you don't want to, so why bother? There will be the fastest, biggest, strongest, smartest... Who says we are the smartest...

Got to love the monkeys transforming into humans comment.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

You mean this experiment? Where they starved bacteria since 2020. I do agree, and the question to ask is why can't we get an elephant from bacteria after 2 whole years...lol geez

You sure the hell take something and just make your own story about it to fit, don't you.

Strawman. Even if E. Coli became anything besides E. Coli it could show evolution is possible. But there is nothing to show such a thing is possible. They started the experiment way before 2020.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If you want to belive that feel free.

The overwhelming evidence is in favour of evolution.

Yet it's never been shown to be a possible mechanism for the origin of species. Your faith is commendable, given that there is no reproducible experiment to prove any of it.

Notice how your main argument is "look at all the evidence", yet you can't point to any experiment that shows a population Of organisms actually evolving into something different. If E. Coli can't become any other microbe besides E. Coli after 73,000 generations, then it's safe to say it's not possible.

All evolution is just accumulated small changes. At no point does one type of organism spontaneously give birth to something completely different.

Evolution describes a mechanism for different species to arrive. Unlike 'God did it' it doesn't require faith.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: tanstaafl

He's saying specifically that trillions of mutations are not needed simultaneously, because it would be a gradual transformation.

I know, but he is simply either ignoring or totally missing the fact that simultaneously is the only way that any single mutation can even have a chance of actually being reinforced through species propagation and thus become permanent.

Otherwise, each and every one of these mutations would simply be one-offs, in just that one individual, never to be seen again - unless/until it shows up randomly ... again.

But the thing is, if it were even possible, most biological functions would theoretically require vast numbers of beneficial mutations to come to be. Given that the likelihood of just one beneficial mutation is:

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
source

This is only the odds to change one functional group in a protein subunit... This would barely make an impact on function, so you would need many of these to hit in order to get any sort of novel biochemical function. Not to mention the difficulty for protein alterations to cause a deeper morphological change. For example, there's no gene that simply adds relevant neuronal mass to the brain. The mechanisms are much more complex than we understand at the moment, which is making 'random chance' less likely day by day

Exactly, and thanks for adding some more technical bits.

It is just as crazy to believe that all life on earth evolved from primordial ooze as it is to believe the literal story of creation as described in the bible.

Do you genuinely not understand how genetic inheritance works? Mutations can be passed on so no do not require trillions of simultaneous changes across the population.

If you believe it does show a source as already asked otherwise its an obvious strawman.

originally posted by: DerekJR321

That being said... If humans didn't evolve from apes, then why are we born with leftovers from them?

Are they (evolutionary) leftovers? To think of certain similarities as leftovers (from a specific evolutionary ancestor), does that not require one to assume an evolutionary relation first? (to this ancestor)

From the standpoint of the fan of evolutionary philosophies, it is desirable to interpret certain similarities as evolutionary leftovers, as long as it fits within their storylines. But the unbiased person is willing to answer this question honestly for themselves (as quoted earlier on page 12):

Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA, the “computer language,” or code, that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.

Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?

Source: QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

As I said to Peeple on page 12:

I would recommend you answering or considering that last question seriously for yourself in all honesty, . . . (or admitting the obvious, reasonable and logical answer to that question, unaffected by any strongly preferred views/beliefs about the matter).

The question of course also counts for other types of similarities in the biological world, incl. those assumed to be evolutionary leftovers in true cherry-picking fashion (sifting the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. Also distorting and twisting facts, interpreting everything in a manner so it fits into the evolutionary storyline, and when you can't make it fit, come up with a new term that involves the word "evolution", i.e. still call it evolution):

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

Amino acids were found in a comets tail.

From your link:

Glycine, the simplest amino acid, its amine precursor methylamine, and other organic compounds were recently detected in the coma of comets such as Wild 2 by NASA’s Stardust mission and 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by ESA’s Rosetta mission.

So you go from "the simplest amino acid", to "amino acids" (which may give some people the impression that you're talking about more than 1 type), presumably both left- and right-handed, to "confirmed panspermia"? OK. I however am thinking about the issues concerning homochirality and the origin of life (since you jumped from "the simplest amino acid" to "confirmed panspermia", a rather big leap of faith):

Some scientists draw conclusions from the evidence that simple organic molecules are fairly common in space. But is that really evidence for the chance formation of life? Is a hardware store evidence that a car must accidentally build itself there?