Jump to content
IGNORED

What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  536
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   563
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/06/2018
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, siegi91 said:

Well, the scientific explanation does not say anything like that. It says that we and chimps split from  a common ancestor about 6 millions years ago.

It also says that we and pigs, rats, carrots, fungi and tree derive from a common ancestor. 

By the way, 99% of all species that walked the earth are now extinct. Would you qualify that as natural order?

Gruss

:) siegi :)

 

Hi Siedi91,

Yes, the scientific explanation does not say anything like that, and I agree. The Creationist explanation however is as valid as any scientific explanation. Neither can be proven as correct, so are equally accurate as potential truth. You cannot invalidate my belief in creation, nor I your belief in evolution. I think however that gives me somewhat of an advantage, since I am able to understand both perspectives equally, and choose the one most valid to me. You do not have that option because you cannot allow for creation as anything viable.  The difference is  our faith. 

Cheers Siegi91 !!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,743
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said:

Hi Siedi91,

Yes, the scientific explanation does not say anything like that, and I agree. The Creationist explanation however is as valid as any scientific explanation. Neither can be proven as correct, so are equally accurate as potential truth. You cannot invalidate my belief in creation, nor I your belief in evolution. I think however that gives me somewhat of an advantage, since I am able to understand both perspectives equally, and choose the one most valid to me. You do not have that option because you cannot allow for creation as anything viable.  The difference is  our faith. 

Cheers Siegi91 !!! :)

Well, the problem is, as usual, that facts are not subject to personal choice. Nor democratic vote. I cannot choose that gravity does not exist. Or submit that to the Landtag.

They are facts. Like evolution. I can close my ears and scream LAHALALA, but the fact will not go away. I am afraid.

:) siegi :)

 

Edited by siegi91
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  536
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   563
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/06/2018
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

Well, the problem is, as usual, that facts are not subject to personal choice. Nor democratic vote. I cannot choose that gravity does not exist. Or submit that to the Landtag.

They are facts. Like evolution. I can close my ears and scream LAHALALA, but the fact will not go away. I am afraid.

:) siegi :)

 

Siegi91, I do not dispute gravity, or the laws of nature, or any of the facts that govern physical processes. I do however choose what I believe about what the facts originate from. Can you not see any option for intelligent design in the structure and interactions of matter and energy in all it's physical forms from the smallest sub atomic particle to the largest physical object known? 

Cheers !!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,743
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, RockyMidnight said:

Siegi91, I do not dispute gravity, or the laws of nature, or any of the facts that govern physical processes. I do however choose what I believe about what the facts originate from. Can you not see any option for intelligent design in the structure and interactions of matter and energy in all it's physical forms from the smallest sub atomic particle to the largest physical object known? 

Cheers !!! :)

You do not dispute gravity because it has no theological importance. And again, science is not subject to taste or vote. So, evolution is accepted because of the evidence and not because of other reasons.

Intelligent design?

Even if there were a design, I would not venture in calling it intelligent. 

I cannot imagine a designer designing a lion so that he can beat his design of an antelope, or viceversa.

Seems totally pointless. Like playing chess against yourself.

:) siegi :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  536
  • Content Per Day:  0.25
  • Reputation:   563
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/06/2018
  • Status:  Offline

30 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

You do not dispute gravity because it has no theological importance. And again, science is not subject to taste or vote. So, evolution is accepted because of the evidence and not because of other reasons.

Intelligent design?

Even if there were a design, I would not venture in calling it intelligent. 

I cannot imagine a designer designing a lion so that he can beat his design of an antelope, or viceversa.

Seems totally pointless. Like playing chess against yourself.

:) siegi :)

 

Well Siegi91, I think the balance of nature involves a little more then the predator/prey relationship between a lion and antelope!:o

No, I do not dispute gravity because every time I drop something, it falls to the ground. Nor do I see things floating off the surface of the planet into space. I do my fishing based on the tides as well, resulting from gravity! Gravity is of great theological importance. Wheredid you get the idea it wasn't?

So, you cannot conceive that there is an intelligence behind any design to existence. What then would you describe as intelligent in reality?

Cheers Siegi91 !!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, siegi91 said:

it depends on your level of sophistication in theoretical physics. Which is?

Depending on the answer, I will adapt my explanation to your level. Promised.

For instance, do unitarian operators in Hilbert spaces mean anything to you? 

If they do, then you should see it immediately from the form of the Hamiltonian as it intervenes in the Schroedinger equation. If not, please tell me what parts of the theory seem to present not unitarian characteristics, and I will be happy to discuss them with you.

I mean, the latest challenge to the constancy of the total information in the Universe has been lost by S. Hawking after a few decades of fight (the so called black holes war), so I would be thrilled if you had an argument that would reopen the battle.

:) siegi :)

So you can't prove it.  Just say so instead of hiding behind the work of others which you obviously don't understand.  

I'll give you an easier question; why are you posting on a Christian only section of Worthy?

Edited by Saved.One.by.Grace
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,743
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

14 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

So you can't prove it.  Just say so instead of hiding behind the work of others which you obviously don't understand.  

I'll give you an easier question; why are you posting on a Christian only section of Worthy?

I told you, the fundamental equations are are based on unitary operators (for instance, the Hamiltonian). That is, their complex conjugation (adjoint) is equal to the group inverse. Which means, all transformation operations acting on any state of the Universe to give another state of the Universe, preserve information. I am surprised you did not know that. Good news is: if you can find a counter example to this, you will become very famous. I hope you indulge me if I will not hold my breath, though :)

And if this was a Christian only section of Worthy, I would not have been able to post. Which entails, it is not a Christian only section of Worthy.

:) siegi :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, siegi91 said:

it depends on your level of sophistication in theoretical physics. Which is?

Depending on the answer, I will adapt my explanation to your level. Promised.

For instance, do unitarian operators in Hilbert spaces mean anything to you? 

If they do, then you should see it immediately from the form of the Hamiltonian as it intervenes in the Schroedinger equation. If not, please tell me what parts of the theory seem to present not unitarian characteristics, and I will be happy to discuss them with you.

I mean, the latest challenge to the constancy of the total information in the Universe has been lost by S. Hawking after a few decades of fight (the so called black holes war), so I would be thrilled if you had an argument that would reopen the battle.

 :) siegi :)

 

It might be a sidetrack here, but I'd be curious to get a clearer more intuitive sense of what "information" is if you are so inclined, or a set of links to some helpful tutorials or articles.     I see the term thrown around a lot and I realize I don't have a solid grasp of what it really is.

My career focus ended up being more on the classical side of physics than the quantum side.  My  last foray into quantum mechanics was looking at things a bit from Hestene's (sp?) Geometric Algebra way of approaching things mathematically a number of years ago.  It looked interesting but I didn't have the time or inclination to delve deeper.  If I was 30 years younger, I probably would  have considered making a serious effort to rewire my mathematical thinking in those terms.  

Anyway, this is only a matter of minor curiosity for me.   Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,743
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

It might be a sidetrack here, but I'd be curious to get a clearer more intuitive sense of what "information" is if you are so inclined, or a set of links to some helpful tutorials or articles.     I see the term thrown around a lot and I realize I don't have a solid grasp of what it really is.

My career focus ended up being more on the classical side of physics than the quantum side.  My  last foray into quantum mechanics was looking at things a bit from Hestene's (sp?) Geometric Algebra way of approaching things mathematically a number of years ago.  It looked interesting but I didn't have the time or inclination to delve deeper.  If I was 30 years younger, I probably would  have considered making a serious effort to rewire my mathematical thinking in those terms.  

Anyway, this is only a matter of minor curiosity for me.   Thanks.

That is an interesting subject. However, it is a difficult one. It is not really difficult per se, but the problem is that we cannot fully rely on our natural cognitive tools (e.g. intuition). They are tuned for survival and therefore only for a limited spectrum of reality, namely the part which is useful to survive the day (middle sized objects, middle sized speeds, etc). Beyond that spectrum they do not work, and we are forced to delegate to math.

First off, information is physical. Yes, I was also surprised. Information looks like something very abstract that cannot be really grasped. But it is physical. It can be measured in bits, or energy/temperature units if we want.

And like all physical measurables, it can stay constant. And that is the case in our Universe. We cannot possibly introduce novelty or remove information. Which means, our Universe is deterministic and reversible. At least, according to what Susskind would call the  -1 principle of physics (-1 because it is more fundamental than all others).

Which is cool. That entails that me writing this post was in principle deducible from the status of the Universe millions of years before my existence. 

My first recommendation to get an update in modern physics is to attend the online courses of Pr. Susskind @ Stanford (the theoretical minimum).   You need linear algebra and calculus (one variable, multiple variables and some complex analysis) in order to follow. Things like tensor analysis and differential geometry are worked out during the course.

:) siegi :)

 

Edited by siegi91
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, siegi91 said:

I told you, the fundamental equations are are based on unitary operators (for instance, the Hamiltonian). That is, their complex conjugation (adjoint) is equal to the group inverse. Which means, all transformation operations acting on any state of the Universe to give another state of the Universe, preserve information. I am surprised you did not know that. Good news is: if you can find a counter example to this, you will become very famous. I hope you indulge me if I will not hold my breath, though :)

And if this was a Christian only section of Worthy, I would not have been able to post. Which entails, it is not a Christian only section of Worthy.

:) siegi :)

So you have no proof and are relying on the unproven work of others.  Typical.

Edited by Saved.One.by.Grace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...