Is The World Old Or Young? Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?

[precious_roy]

john doran:

how would you go about proving that someone had been killed, not by accident, but by malice aforethought?

Ah so. I see what you are saying; it comes down to a statistical argument. I understand.

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

The problem with common descent evolution or macro evolution is, there is nothing to say that a dog will ever turn in to any thing other then a dog.

I’m not sure what you mean.

freesoulhope:

Why are there not any insects in the process of turning in to a wilder beast? aye aye aye aye! HA hAAA, beat that one.

As explained above with the dog and reptile example, there already are wildebeests. You can’t evolve into something that already exists. The whole point of common decent is that to arrive at the same place evolutionarily you have to follow the same path. The ancestors of insects and wildebeests separated a loooong time ago. They are different on a very profound level and you can’t evolve backwards.

That being said there is nothing to say that insects aren’t evolving right now as we’re looking at them.

There are physiological and structural reasons why insects in their current form will never become as large as a wildebeest but that is part of the deterministic part of the process.

Ha hAAAA back at you.

 

[buffalo]

precious_roy:

Oh, I see what you are saying. So in essence, they would be providing evidence that, for example, the probablility that we evolved from such a form was X, and if X was to low, one would assume desgin was involved?

What would be, for example, some predictive ability that it provided?

That the design is repeatable. The same for any scientific theory. One which Darwinism cannot do. Darwinism cannot predict what the human form will be like in the future.

 

[precious_roy]

buffalo:

That the design is repeatable. The same for any scientific theory. One which Darwinism cannot do. Darwinism cannot predict what the human form will be like in the future.

Right, I understand about the lack of predictibility with evolution. But I am not sure what you mean “The design is repeatable.” You mean that the Creator would start over, or start replicating species that went extinct?

 

[buffalo]

precious_roy:

Right, I understand about the lack of predictibility with evolution. But I am not sure what you mean “The design is repeatable.” You mean that the Creator would start over, or start replicating species that went extinct?

No, that the test for design is repeatable.

 

[precious_roy]

Wait, wait, wait, I think that I might know what you are getting at.

Something to the effect of “gene mutations aren’t random”, which is to say there is no such thing as randomness?

That happens to be a proposal that I agree with but have never been able to prove as a result of the work done by John Bell in the area of measurable uncertainty.

 

[john_doran]

precious_roy:

That happens to be a proposal that I agree with but have never been able to prove as a result of the work done by John Bell in the area of measurable uncertainty.

what do you mean by this?

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Sure. Scientists have calculated odds on something being designed. I can’t remember the exact number but is was 10 (to the many zeroes). Actually SETI does it now.

Why would SETI have anything to say about ID or evolution?

The only thing like that I have seen from any SETI group is the Drake Equation , an estimate for the number of technologically advanced life forms that might be in the galaxy at any one time.

I would be interested in seeing what you’re referring to.
I can see developing a list of characteristics that would differential designed from non-designed things

But to assign a probability…I’m sure the ID folks would just assume that it was 1

 

[john_doran]

Why would SETI have anything to say about ID or evolution?

they don’t (directly) - i think buffalo was making a point about the use of statistical modelling in drawing reasonable conclusions about design: for the SETI program to be successful, it must have a principled methodology for differentiating between radio signals that are simply the result of natural phenomena (e.g. pulsars), and those that are the product of technology.

 

[precious_roy]

john doran:

what do you mean by this?

Oh, I was speaking of the work that John Bell did back in the day.

So Einstein was always a hater of quantum mechanics because he did not believe that “God would play dice”, or in other words that there was such thing and ‘total randomness’ in the universe. The scientific theory that was in competition with this was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which was one of governing importance in quantum mechanics and hence in chemistry, genetics, biology, etc.

So he set out to prove that this was not so. However, after proposing a theory it was refuted by John Bell, who extended the theory to say that at some level, everything is probabilistic and thus nothing can be totally determined. There is still some debate over hidden variable theories and loopholes in the EPR paradox refutation, but largely people of science take quantum mechanics and its assumptions to be true because of their massive supporting evidence.

I however hold to some form of hidden variable theory. Even though you cannot KNOW an electrons momentum and direction simultaneously, and thus the level of uncertainty, this doesn’t mean that the electron does not possess these properties as a matter of truth. This is a philosophical/religious argument rather than a scientific one though I am afraid.

 

[steveandersen]

precious_roy:

…Something to the effect of “gene mutations aren’t random”, which is to say there is no such thing as randomness?..

Gene mutations aren’t truely random

That doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as randomness but many aspects of the process are deterministic

 

[freesoulhope]

precious_roy:

Is that even testable? I mean, how can you determine if something is designed? This kind of reminds me of the Crabtree Bludgeon.

No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.

Why cant i say the same thing for natural selection.

 

[precious_roy]

john doran:

they don’t (directly) - i think buffalo was making a point about the use of statistical modelling in drawing reasonable conclusions about design: for the SETI program to be successful, it must have a principled methodology for differentiating between radio signals that are simply the result of natural phenomena (e.g. pulsars), and those that are the product of technology.

Actually, SETI is very interesting.

Its results rely on a probabilistic theory called the Central Limit Theorem. This theorem states that given enough random variables (actually infinite random variables), that the SUM of all those random variables will be……drumroll please……a Gaussian random variable (or a perfect bell curve)! Phenomal.

So what SETI does is assumes that there are a LOT of signals out there coming from stars, dust, quasars, pulsars and so on. And that there are so many signals that you could approximate the number as infinity. Thus, if you pointed a satellite signal receiver into any random point in the sky, you would expect (minus earthly signals) that the sum of all the signals would be a bell curve with specific mean and variance. SETI then tests the frequency domain plot (fourier transform) of the incoming sum of signals against a bell curve fit. If the fit is within certain variance, then the information from that location in space is discarded, as there are only random signals. If the bell curve does not fit, SETI assumes there is something non-random coming from that point, and the location is saved for further review.

In case you were interested.

 

[precious_roy]

steveandersen:

Gene mutations aren’t truely random

That doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as randomness but many aspects of the process are deterministic

This is where my lack of biology knowledge does me in.

So mutations come from errors when cells are copying themselves, right? Well, also from radiation or retroviruses I guess. But what causes copying errors to occur?

 

[precious_roy]

freesoulhope:

Why cant i say the same thing for natural selection.

You could, thats the whole point. You can say that for anything. Its a bludgeon because it is meant to refute occams razor.

 

[marysson]

precious_roy:

This is where my lack of biology knowledge does me in.

So mutations come from errors when cells are copying themselves, right? Well, also from radiation or retroviruses I guess. But what causes copying errors to occur?

It is quite possible for God to effect this on the quantum level and it would be undetectable to science.

 

[freesoulhope]

precious_roy:

Oh, I was speaking of the work that John Bell did back in the day.

So Einstein was always a hater of quantum mechanics because he did not believe that “God would play dice”, or in other words that there was such thing and ‘total randomness’ in the universe. The scientific theory that was in competition with this was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which was one of governing importance in quantum mechanics and hence in chemistry, genetics, biology, etc.

So he set out to prove that this was not so. However, after proposing a theory it was refuted by John Bell, who extended the theory to say that at some level, everything is probabilistic and thus nothing can be totally determined. There is still some debate over hidden variable theories and loopholes in the EPR paradox refutation, but largely people of science take quantum mechanics and its assumptions to be true because of their massive supporting evidence.

I however hold to some form of hidden variable theory. Even though you cannot KNOW an electrons momentum and direction simultaneously, and thus the level of uncertainty, this doesn’t mean that the electron does not possess these properties as a matter of truth. This is a philosophical/religious argument rather than a scientific one though I am afraid.

So you agree that God plays dice, is that what your tying to say!
why? If god knows everything including the future, then nothing is left to chance, is it! dont you agree?

 

[precious_roy]

freesoulhope:

So you agree that God plays dice, is that what your tying to say!
why? If god knows everything including the future, then nothing is left to chance, is it! dont you agree?

No, I don’t agree that God plays dice. But I am saying that it has been demonstrated scientifically that we can only know things to a particular level of certainty, which will always leave some element of randomness in any scientific theory.

That said, I philsophically and religiously (not scientifically, because I cannot prove it) believe that God does not play dice and there are not ‘totally random’ quantum fluctuations. Maybe that’s God way of saying ‘you can only go so far’?

 

[john_doran]

precious_roy:

Oh, I was speaking of the work that John Bell did back in the day.

So Einstein was always a hater of quantum mechanics because he did not believe that “God would play dice”, or in other words that there was such thing and ‘total randomness’ in the universe. The scientific theory that was in competition with this was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which was one of governing importance in quantum mechanics and hence in chemistry, genetics, biology, etc.

So he set out to prove that this was not so. However, after proposing a theory it was refuted by John Bell, who extended the theory to say that at some level, everything is probabilistic and thus nothing can be totally determined. There is still some debate over hidden variable theories and loopholes in the EPR paradox refutation, but largely people of science take quantum mechanics and its assumptions to be true because of their massive supporting evidence.

it sounds like you’ve got bell’s inequality a bit backward: bell showed that any violation of his inequality entailed a world that is (A) non-real or (B) non-local. that is, you can’t have a world that is both local and real.

bell himself believed in the hidden variable approach, as did bohm and debroglie (and numerous others).

aspect’s experiment - the one that allegedly confirmed that bell’s inequality is, in fact, violated - is not uncontroversial (franson, for example, claims the timing constraints on the first run not to have been sufficiently precise to rule out a local reality).

precious_roy:

I however hold to some form of hidden variable theory. Even though you cannot KNOW an electrons momentum and direction simultaneously, and thus the level of uncertainty, this doesn’t mean that the electron does not possess these properties as a matter of truth. This is a philosophical/religious argument rather than a scientific one though I am afraid.

all model-selection and interpretation is philosophical.

 

[freesoulhope]

My brain is expanding)

Have ever heard of that scientific article saying that are brains have grown or evolved more since the 20th century?

i dont mean in inteligents!.