How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #159]

FYI, no one in science gives a crap what "creation.com" says about....well, anything.

J. B. S. Haldane the scientist who developed the dilemma was an atheist, Marxist and secular humanist. He wrote for the Rationalist magazine.

This is your guy man. "Haldane's article on abiogenesis in 1929 introduced the "primordial soup theory", which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life." He is your last best hope for your defense of evolution. Or it's demise more likely its demise.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #158]

LOL....it was an experimentally-derived species that was likely destroyed when the experiment was over. It's not like they released it into the wild.

More likely it was because there was not a new species created. Because they say in their paper that:

The difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

Prezygotic reproductive isolation is just one type of reproductive isolation. Do you need me to walk you through the different types and why it matters?

Yes you do need another example because specialization did not happen in this example because they say in their conclusion.

The difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

So now we're to the part where you ignore what's posted to you and just keep repeating yourself. I suppose I could repeat myself and keep reminding you that prezygotic reproductive isolation is one type of reproductive isolation, to which you would respond by ignoring that fact and repeating the above all over again.....but that's already gotten old so I'm not inclined to keep doing it.

I'm trying to find the post where you made it clear that when you asked for examples of "experimental rapid speciation", you would only accept speciation that involved prezygotic reproductive isolation, but I can't find anything like that at all. All I see is your initial demand, me providing you with one example that you ignored, followed by me providing you the second example that you are now dismissing because it didn't involve prezygotic reproductive isolation.

IOW, it's the standard creationist tactic of moving the goalposts.

And I suppose you're just going to completely ignore my question about why you're now arguing against rapid speciation, when previously you claimed it supported your beliefs in the Biblical flood.

Such is the fundamentally dishonest nature of creationism....

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #159]

FYI, no one in science gives a crap what "creation.com" says about....well, anything.

J. B. S. Haldane the scientist who developed the dilemma was an atheist, Marxist and secular humanist. He wrote for the Rationalist magazine.

This is your guy man. "Haldane's article on abiogenesis in 1929 introduced the "primordial soup theory", which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life." He is your last best hope for your defense of evolution. Or it's demise more likely its demise.

Y'all need new arguments.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #159]

FYI, no one in science gives a crap what "creation.com" says about....well, anything.

Are you saying that Dr. Don Batten does not really have his Dr. degree? Really. Wow. Ok. Do you think he will get it soon? Or are you saying that the only researches that have any credibility are the ones that agree with you? I do not dismiss papers you reference. In fact most of the time I use the papers you reference to support my position. But you are correct. I do not think that Dr. Batten or Remine will help your argument out. I would want to dismiss them if I were you also. That is much easier and less thought-provoking.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #159]

FYI, no one in science gives a crap what "creation.com" says about....well, anything.

Are you saying that Dr. Don Batten does not really have his Dr. degree? Really. Wow. Ok. Do you think he will get it soon? Or are you saying that the only researches that have any credibility are the ones that agree with you? I do not dismiss papers you reference. In fact most of the time I use the papers you reference to support my position. But you are correct. I do not think that Dr. Batten or Remine will help your argument out. I would want to dismiss them if I were you also. That is much easier and less thought-provoking.

I'm saying exactly what I said....no one in science gives a crap about articles at "creation.com". If Batten wants scientists to notice his arguments and claims, he needs to put them somewhere else.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #141]

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
That the sycamore tree
continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.
---
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
The sycamore tree
continues to be,
observed by Yours faithfully, God.

So what is your point and what does it have to do with quantum mechanics? Nice poem.

Cambridge Core
Quantum Solipsism and Nonlocality
from Part III - Nonlocality: Illusion or Reality?
Abstract
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data.

"If (any theory involving hypothetical entities) is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."- Bell

In quantum mechanics, nothing is, before it's observed. Observation causes the wave function to collapse and then it is.

But for the observer that's creating the all of reality. Any other observers are observed by him so they are being manifested by him as well. Sounds like solipsism to me.

But then, there's only one God, isn't there?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #159]

FYI, no one in science gives a crap what "creation.com" says about....well, anything.

J. B. S. Haldane the scientist who developed the dilemma was an atheist, Marxist and secular humanist. He wrote for the Rationalist magazine.

This is your guy man. "Haldane's article on abiogenesis in 1929 introduced the "primordial soup theory", which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life." He is your last best hope for your defense of evolution. Or it's demise more likely its demise.

It's always astonishing to me that people cannot comprehend that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the way life began. Even if God didn't use abiogenesis to create life, evolution would still work exactly as it is observed to work.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #162]

So now we're to the part where you ignore what's posted to you and just keep repeating yourself. I suppose I could repeat myself and keep reminding you that prezygotic reproductive isolation is one type of reproductive isolation, to which you would respond by ignoring that fact and repeating the above all over again.....but that's already gotten old so I'm not inclined to keep doing it.

Yes, because you are not even accepting what your own article is concluding. It is saying that speciation happens it is saying speciation may happen which is a big difference.

And yes you are ignoring what your own cited paper concludes. That speciation may happen not that it does happen.

I understand your not wanting to accept the fact that rapid speciation does not happen. Because I understand what it does to your worldview. I am sorry to be the one that disrupts your worldview in this way.

I'm trying to find the post where you made it clear that when you asked for examples of "experimental rapid speciation", you would only accept speciation that involved prezygotic reproductive isolation, but I can't find anything like that at all. All I see is your initial demand, me providing you with one example that you ignored, followed by me providing you the second example that you are now dismissing because it didn't involve prezygotic reproductive isolation.

I did ask for examples of "Rapid Speciation". This is not an example. Your own article that you cited and that I have repeatedly pointed out to you says that this is not an example of speciation. But that it may lead to speciation.

IOW, it's the standard creationist tactic of moving the goalposts.

What Goal post have I moved I am still looking for an example of rapid speciation.

And I suppose you're just going to completely ignore my question about why you're now arguing against rapid speciation when previously you claimed it supported your beliefs in the Biblical flood.

I did not see this question. I do not remember saying this. But I do support the Biblical flood model so yes there would have to be a rapid adaptation and speciation. I actually did expect you to find evidence of rapid speciation but nothing beyond the point of family. I am just saying that you have yet to show an example of rapid speciation.

In fact, 9 out of 10 species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years or less.

You should have gone to the creation site for your example. But rapid speciation happens within limits like the different breeds of dogs, cows, and pigs were made by humans. It also happens the same way that humans breed different domestic animals. Evidence of this is the different species of dogs that can breed. or the different species in the cat family that can mate. Or like the different members in the horse family that can mate like the Zebra and horse.

Are these different species if they can mate? Horses and Zebra's are considered to be different species but they can still mate. Ilama's and camels can also breed but are considered different species. This would fit a creationist model but not an evolutionary model but because the definition of species in evolutionary terms is.

• a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

So the creation model is outside that of evolutionary definition, but observations of interbreeding species do support it.

Here are some videos of the way that rapid speciation actually happens.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... peciation/
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... nt-origin/

Increases in genetic information in the genome are limited by Haldane's dilemma. For example

• Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them. And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,2 evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human.
  
  However, with more realistic rates of fitness/selection and population replenishment, the number of beneficial mutations that can be accounted for plummets. Haldane calculated that no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have occurred in the supposed 10 million years since the last common ancestor of apes and humans. This is a mere one substitution per 300 generations, on average. The origin of all that makes us uniquely human has to be explained within this limit.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #140]

So if achieving reproductive isolation is not speciation to you, what is?

Can a Great Dane mate with a Chihuahua? Or are they mechanically isolated?

From your article.

The partial reproductive isolation that evolved between lice on giant runts and feral pigeons likely represents the first, and arguably most critical, stage of speciation. If lice continue to increase in size over time, the difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

You might want to try another example. Because your article says that they did not form a new species. But you can argue with your own article if you want to.

The lice that live in the heads of humans is different than the lice that lives in the pubic area. Lice which lives in the pubic area is genetically more similar to lice that's found on gorillas.

I'll just leave this here for folks to study on

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #167]

It's always astonishing to me that people cannot comprehend that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the way life began. Even if God didn't use abiogenesis to create life, evolution would still work exactly as it is observed to work.

Ok what are you saying about the following is incorrect.

• Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them. And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,2 evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human.
  
  However, with more realistic rates of fitness/selection and population replenishment, the number of beneficial mutations that can be accounted for plummets. Haldane calculated that no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have occurred in the supposed 10 million years since the last common ancestor of apes and humans. This is a mere one substitution per 300 generations, on average. The origin of all that makes us uniquely human has to be explained within this limit. https://creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-h ... een-solved