How is there reality without God?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

How is there reality without God?

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #321

Post by William »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 am [Replying to Difflugia in post #312]
"Observer" means something specific in physics. Your argument is that gods are somehow needed to be that specific thing in order for the universe to exist. Or at least I think that's your argument.
It is not my argument it is Neils Bohr argument. He is the one who said that "A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed." or you can say measured if that makes you feel better.
Re the question "How is there reality without God?" are you saying that the universe was created through God observing it?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #322

Post by Jose Fly »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:14 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:58 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:46 pm Because it exists in every industry in the capitalist world.
Not in mine. Thus, anyone who blindly assumes such a thing about me and my colleagues is sorely mistaken.
By profit motive I don't mean any particular person succumbs to it. I just mean that the carrot is there. Similar to how you can have a "motive" for a suspect in a murder case which just means the person has a valid reason to have committed it. He gains something by doing the act. And you would gain something by being corrupt, unless the mechanism to stop it was airtight. Instead of one person who clearly decided all on his own to do a bad, imagine if it were a horde of them who crept in with corporate backing until they quietly outnumbered you, and only then do they show their true colours.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:58 pm
They're just being silly by outing themselves. They're discrediting themselves.
Not to their target audience they aren't. Fundamentalist Christians see that sort of thing and it makes them love AiG all the more.
Right. They think they're being honest. They really believe their religion. That's the only reason they out themselves. If they knew what the heck they were doing, they'd try to hide it.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:58 pm
Suppose they did what every other dishonest organisation does, and hid their dishonesty?
If all this dishonesty is hidden, how do you know it exists?
It's a reasonable assumption, because some people are dishonest and caught after they try to hide it. I also have personal experience with people being dishonest and hiding it, and never being caught, because I'm the only person in the room smart enough to see through their act while not being quite smart enough or nearly charismatic enough to convince anyone else of it, so I'm powerless to do anything but meaninglessly shoot myself in the foot, and perhaps offer meaningless consolation to the people exploited and thrown under the bus by these deceivers, meaningless because I still can't do anything about it.
Well, once again we find ourselves in the same spot, where you employ black/white thinking and assume the worst about people you know little to nothing about. As we've been over before, I don't share that outlook.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #323

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 amIt is not my argument it is Neils Bohr argument.
Argument, aphorism, quip, whatever.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 amHe is the one who said that "A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed."
That doesn't imply that otherwise unobserved phenomena must necessarily be observed, though, which is what your argument requires. When you add your own things to someone else's argument, it ceases to be their argument and becomes yours.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 amor you can say measured if that makes you feel better.
It doesn't matter to me which words you choose as long as you use them correctly. Now, that would make me feel better.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #324

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
No. It depends on the selective value of the mutation. The mutation for adult lactose, for example, spread through about 35% of the human population in about 20,000 years:
Most babies can digest milk without getting an upset stomach thanks to an enzyme called lactase. Up until several thousand years ago, that enzyme turned off once a person grew into adulthood — meaning most adults were lactose intolerant (or "lactase nonpersistent," as scientists call it).

But now that doesn't happen for most people of Northern and Central European descent and in certain African and Middle Eastern populations. This development of lactose tolerance took only about 20,000 years — the evolutionary equivalent of a hot minute — but it would have required extremely strong selective pressure.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20 ... -tolerance
Well, thank you again for supporting my argument. This mutation for adult lactose is an autosomal dominant trait. So are you saying that not even in 20,000 years a dominant trait cannot become fixed in the entire population like O blood. Too bad reality is not working for you. One trait in 20,000 years is worse than Haldane's theory.
You know better. Creationism can't even explain how Hall's bacteria evolved a new enzyme system, much less the fossil record of whales:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
CEN Tech J. No. 9 vol. 2 1995
And this professor from Indiana University gives this warning about the 'long-outdated "Ladder of Evolution" concept.
CAUTION: Unfortunately, students may come away from this lesson with the mistaken conclusion that each of the intermediate whale forms were in the direct (lineal) line of descent between the land-dwelling tetrapods and fully aquatic whales. IN REALITY, it is most likely that these “transitional forms” were only “collateral” (cousin-like) ancestors, but showing features that were likely found in their “cousins” that did evolve into modern whales. This subtle distinction may seem unimportant, but to assume that fossils generally fit into a lineal (direct) line of descent conveys the erroneous impression of the long-outdated “Ladder of Evolution” concept. Rather, students should recognize that what we are seeing are the vestiges of many side branches in a diverse BRANCHING TREE of evolution.

Furthermore, students should focus more on the mosaic accumulation over time of a series of new features modified (derived) from ancestral features over time, not the species per se. The fossil remains collected simply reveal that those respective features existed in those related species at that period of time. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons ... phylog.pdf, now available at Archive.org.
Biologist Richard Sternberg noted the changes needed to convert a land mammal into a whale.
  • Emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
  • Modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision
  • Ability to drink seawater
  • Forelimbs transformed into flippers
  • Modification of skeletal structure
  • Ability to nurse young underwater
  • Origin of tail flukes and musculature
Blubber for temperature insulation
How long do you think these changes will take? Using your example above, I do not think the universe has been around long enough for this "evolution" to take place. The Hippo genome has a size of 2.43 Gb and the orca has a genome size of 2.65. That is a 92% difference. Let's say that it takes 80 million mutations. That means, according to your example above it would take 1.6E12 years and that is if all changes were dominant changes. It would actually be longer because in your example the mutation did not become fixed in the entire genome.
Very unlikely. It would be very unlikely for identical blood types to evolve independently. Humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one other race of H. sapiens all evolved from a common archaic H. sapiens race. You see, we didn't evolve from Neanderthals nor did they evolve from us. (we did interbreed from time to time, however). So blood types were almost certainly evolved before the split of these different races.
More Fairy tales remember how you have already learned that it would take a very small group like the group of 8 people after the flood for the O allele to be in the entire human race which includes the Neanderthals.
In science, theories change as new evidence indicates. In contrast, creationism requires reality to conform to creationist assumptions.
Science theories change when they are wrong. And when their basic mechanism is shown to be incorrect like in the case of evolution they are usually discarded.
And creationism cannot change, even when it's wrong.
You have not proved creationism is incorrect.
You already know that's wrong. Remember when I showed you that the four points of Darwinian theory remain as solidly demonstrated as ever? But Darwin's theory has been modified by genetics, which explained how new traits can spread in a population, by punctuated equilibrium, which explains why most speciation is allopatric, and so on.

Take for example the basic mechanism of evolution. Is it natural selection or is it genetic drift?

Neither. You're confusing evolution with agencies of evolution. It's just a change in allele frequencies. Genetic drift can explain how this happens when there is little or no selective pressure. Natural selection explains things like the evolution of that new enzyme system in bacteria.
You are right it is neither.
  • As Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries wrote in 1904, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”
  • For the arrival of the fittest, most modern evolutionary biologists rely on mutations
In evolutionary biology, it’s generally thought that mutations are “random” in two respects:
  • Mutations occur with equal likelihood across the entire genome. So there’s no part of the genome that is MORE or LESS likely to experience mutations than any other part of the genome. This is supposed to mean mutations are not directed or concentrated, but in a sense are randomly distributed across the genome.
As you have already learned this has been proven incorrect. There are some parts of the genome in which mutations happen and other parts where they do not.
  • Mutations occur without regard to the needs of the organisms, meaning they are random and not directed for or against what the organisms needs to survive.
This has also been proven incorrect.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6
I think your confusion has to do with how they are random. They aren't necessarily random in time, but random in the sense that they don't appear in response to need. This is what Delbruck and Luria showed.
Again as I have taught you already the random nature is a reference to the area of the genome.
  • The Nature study found that sections of the Arabidopsis genome that encode genes are LESS likely to experience mutations than the “intergenic” regions — the sections of the genome between genes that don’t encode proteins. They found that “the frequency of mutation was 58% lower in gene bodies than in nearby intergenic space.”

    They further found that “essential genes,” such as those basic genes responsible for translation (e.g., converting the information in DNA into proteins), had even LOWER mutation rates compared to other genes that had more specialized functions.

    Please also note this important point: The study was able to directly measure mutations after they occurred in the plant but before mutations could have been affected by natural selection, which might “weed out” certain mutations that have deleterious effects. So the authors think they have provided a true and accurate measure of mutations as they occur in the DNA.

    Or to put it another way, mutations don’t occur randomly in the sense that some parts of the genome are less likely to experience mutations than other parts of the genome. Instead, in a sense mutations DO occur with respect to the needs of the organism. I don’t mean that the non-randomness of mutations identified in this study could help organisms build new complex traits. That’s not indicated. Rather, the non-randomness of mutations seems to be designed to minimize mutations in the places where they would do the most damage to the organism’s basic functions.
Considering that it's not fixed in the human population, I don't see your point. Perhaps you don't know what "fixation" is in genetics.
Evidently, you do not know what fixation is because Patterson and Sanford do know.
I don't see how any rational person could say that a new enzyme and regulator "reduced" function. Obviously, it produced two additional functions. But let's see your data; what do you have?
I cited the article in a previous post

One generation. Remember what evolution is. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. Genetic data says it took lactose persistence about 20,000 years to spread to roughly a third of humans. It says that it took less than a year for Halls bacteria to evolve a new, regulated enzyme system. Remember how I told you that the time it takes, depends on generation time and selective pressure?
Yes, and to solve Haldane's dilemma Kimura used neutral mutations and genetic drift as his mechanism. Which would take even longer than Natural selection.
One generation. In vertebrates, this happens maybe once every thousand pregnancies. A fusion is a mutation that joins two chromosomes together. But I'm thinking you're a bit foggy on what telomeres have to to with it. In the case of the human no.2 chromosome, the fusion did not remove the telomeres. At the fusion site, we can still find remains of those telomeres, right where they were predicted to be.
I am not talking about just the human no 2 chromsome.
So how long would it take to change all of the telomeres? Or how would all of them change?
Well, not the way you seem to think. You see, they function only to prevent loss of genetic data. In vertebrates, they are just repetitions of TTAGGG. Normally, each cell division results in a shortening of the telomeres. The loss of these elements leads to the death of cells by aging and limits the number of times a cell can divide. If we could find a safe and effective way to restore them, we could greatly increase human life spans.
I don't think so. From same article as above
  • Slower rates of aging distinguish humans from our nearest living cousins. Chimpanzees rarely survive their forties while large fractions of women are postmenopausal even in high-mortality hunter–gatherer populations. Cellular and molecular mechanisms for these somatic aging differences remain to be identified, though telomeres might play a role. To find out, we compared telomere lengths across age-matched samples of female chimpanzees and women.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #325

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 am "A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed."
Do you think that should apply to the supernatural?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #326

Post by William »

[Replying to William in post #321]
Re the question "How is there reality without God?" are you saying that the universe was created through God observing it?
brunumb wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:20 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:34 am "A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed."
Do you think that should apply to the supernatural?
It appears to be the argument, based upon the premise that something does not exist until it is observed.

However, there is something that not only is necessary in order to observe and acknowledge the existence of things, but cannot be directly observed as a physical thing itself, and is known to be a thing through how it interacts with physical things, although it is not thought of as being 'supernatural' unless it is attached to the concept of a GOD, or spirit beings, afterlife or any number of beliefs associated with what some refer to as 'irrational thinking"

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #327

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:07 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
No. It depends on the selective value of the mutation. The mutation for adult lactose, for example, spread through about 35% of the human population in about 20,000 years:
Most babies can digest milk without getting an upset stomach thanks to an enzyme called lactase. Up until several thousand years ago, that enzyme turned off once a person grew into adulthood — meaning most adults were lactose intolerant (or "lactase nonpersistent," as scientists call it).

But now that doesn't happen for most people of Northern and Central European descent and in certain African and Middle Eastern populations. This development of lactose tolerance took only about 20,000 years — the evolutionary equivalent of a hot minute — but it would have required extremely strong selective pressure.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/20 ... -tolerance
Well, thank you again for supporting my argument.
You seem to have come over to my side. Here we have a rapid spread of lactose tolerance in a much shorter time than you said was possible (in dairying cultures only, mind you).
This mutation for adult lactose is an autosomal dominant trait. So are you saying that not even in 20,000 years a dominant trait cannot become fixed in the entire population like O blood.
I'm guessing you still haven't figured out what "fixation" means. But in far northern European populations, it is over 82%. And in non-dairying cultures like China, it's very uncommon. If you thought about it, I'm sure you could see why. Too bad reality is not working for you.
One trait in 20,000 years is worse than Haldane's theory.
Well, that's a bad assumption. For example, tens of thousands of years ago, northern Europeans had dark skins. Light skins became fixed rather rapidly. But it's not hard to figure out why natural selection made that happen.

Creationism can't even explain how Hall's bacteria evolved a new enzyme system, much less the fossil record of whales:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

CEN Tech J. No. 9 vol. 2 1995
And this professor from Indiana University gives this warning about the 'long-outdated "Ladder of Evolution" concept.
You're a bit confused. Dr. Wise is not speaking of a "ladder of evolution." In fact, he cites the evidence that makes your assumption untenable. And he cites what he calls "very good evidence" for the diversification of whales.
Biologist Richard Sternberg noted the changes needed to convert a land mammal into a whale.
  • Emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
And not surprisingly...
Image
  • Modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision
And the fossil record...
https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/3094/
  • Ability to drink seawater
You've assumed what is not in evidence:
Species that subsist on plants or invertebrates (such as crustaceans and mollusks) consume food with about the same salt content as seawater. These species thus face the same salt removal problem they would have if they drank seawater directly. In contrast, marine mammals that feed on fish consume food with a salt content similar to that of their own blood, thereby avoiding the problem entirely. Indeed, a study of California sea lions showed that, on a diet of fish, these animals can live without drinking fresh water at all.

Some species of seals and sea lions apparently do drink seawater at least occasionally, as do common dolphins and sea otters, but the practice is very rare in some other species. When given the choice, manatees and some pinnipeds will drink fresh water. (People who live on salt or brackish waterways in Florida sometimes leave a garden hose flowing into the water in order to see the manatees come to drink). Likewise, some seals will eat snow to get fresh water. For most whales and dolphins, however, we simply do not know how they get their water, because it is difficult to observe these animals.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... als-drink/

How would a "biologist" not know something like this? You couldn't get through an animal physiology course without getting that information. Not all "biologists" are equally knowledgeable, I suppose.
  • Forelimbs transformed into flippers
Image
Image
Image
  • Modification of skeletal structure
Um, that happens in all sorts of vertebrates. Why would that be surprising? What modification, specifically, do you think is impossible?
  • Ability to nurse young underwater
What about that seems impossible to have evolved?
  • Origin of tail flukes and musculature
That's an interesting one. Why would whales have a horizontal fluke in stead of a vertical tail fin like fish? If you can't figure out why it evolved that way, I'll tell you next post. But I'd be interested in knowing if you could figure that out.
Blubber for temperature insulation
Humans have that. We are relatively unusual in the amount of subcutaneous fat, which provides insulation for us. Whales and other marine mammals have a lot more than we do, for the obvious reasons. It requires no particular adaptations, other than becoming thicker.
How long do you think these changes will take?
About 50 million years, based on the fossil record.
Using your example above, I do not think the universe has been around long enough for this "evolution" to take place.
But the whales were never told about your theory, so they ignorantly evolved those adaptations (most of them concurrently) just like those bacteria that evolved a new enyzme system. If your theory and reality don't match, do you see your problem?
The Hippo genome has a size of 2.43 Gb and the orca has a genome size of 2.65. That is a 92% difference.
Check your math. You've made an error

Very unlikely. It would be very unlikely for identical blood types to evolve independently. Humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one other race of H. sapiens all evolved from a common archaic H. sapiens race. You see, we didn't evolve from Neanderthals nor did they evolve from us. (we did interbreed from time to time, however). So blood types were almost certainly evolved before the split of these different races.
More Fairy tales
Nope. We have the genomes of those other H. sapiens races and it's not what you thought.
remember how you have already learned that it would take a very small group like the group of 8 people after the flood for the O allele to be in the entire human race which includes the Neanderthals.
Nope. As you learned, O alleles are not fixed in any population.

In science, theories change as new evidence indicates. In contrast, creationism requires reality to conform to creationist assumptions.
Science theories change when they are wrong.
Generally, theories are upgraded to refine and correct them.
And when their basic mechanism is shown to be incorrect like in the case of evolution they are usually discarded.
That's a testable belief. Which of Darwin's points have been falsified? There are four of them. Tell me what you think with your evidence.

And creationism cannot change, even when it's wrong.
You have not proved creationism is incorrect.
Since evolution is directly observed to happen, that falsifies your belief.

You already know that's wrong. Remember when I showed you that the four points of Darwinian theory remain as solidly demonstrated as ever? But Darwin's theory has been modified by genetics, which explained how new traits can spread in a population, by punctuated equilibrium, which explains why most speciation is allopatric, and so on.
Take for example the basic mechanism of evolution. Is it natural selection or is it genetic drift?
Neither. You're confusing evolution with agencies of evolution. It's just a change in allele frequencies. Genetic drift can explain how this happens when there is little or no selective pressure. Natural selection explains things like the evolution of that new enzyme system in bacteria.
You are right
Yep.
As Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries wrote in 1904, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”
For the arrival of the fittest, most modern evolutionary biologists rely on mutations
Or recombination. Or hybridization (less common, but it happens).
In evolutionary biology, it’s generally thought that mutations are “random” in two respects:

Mutations occur with equal likelihood across the entire genome.
No, that's wrong. Molecular biologists point out that not all sites are equally like to be mutated and not be repaired. Remember when I showed you the research.
So there’s no part of the genome that is MORE or LESS likely to experience mutations than any other part of the genome.
Some (but not all) creationists agree with you. But they are wrong.
This is supposed to mean mutations are not directed or concentrated, but in a sense are randomly distributed across the genome.
As I already showed you, this is incorrect. Like many creationists, you misunderstood what Luria and Delbruck meant by "random." It means that favorable mutations arrive randomly, and not in response to need. If you learn nothing else about mutations, learn this.

Mutations occur without regard to the needs of the organisms, meaning they are random and not directed for or against what the organisms needs to survive.
This has also been proven incorrect.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

I think your confusion has to do with how they are random. They aren't necessarily random in time, but random in the sense that they don't appear in response to need. This is what Delbruck and Luria showed.
Again as I have taught you already the random nature is a reference to the area of the genome.
Well, that's a testable belief...
The Luria–Delbrück experiment (1943) (also called the Fluctuation Test) demonstrated that in bacteria, genetic mutations arise in the absence of selective pressure rather than being a response to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria%E2% ... experiment

Sorry, you're wrong.
  • The Nature study found that sections of the Arabidopsis genome that encode genes are LESS likely to experience mutations than the “intergenic” regions — the sections of the genome between genes that don’t encode proteins. They found that “the frequency of mutation was 58% lower in gene bodies than in nearby intergenic space.”
That's been known for along time. Would you like me to show you some earlier research? But as you probably realize now, that isn't what "random" meant in terms of mutations.
mutations don’t occur randomly in the sense that some parts of the genome are less likely to experience mutations than other parts of the genome.
But as Luria and Delbruck demonstrated, they do occur randomly in the sense of not appearing in response to need.

Considering that it's not fixed in the human population, I don't see your point. Perhaps you don't know what "fixation" is in genetics.
Evidently, you do not know what fixation is because Patterson and Sanford do know.
Regardless, it's not fixed in the human population. Reality beats anyone's opinion. Sorry.

I don't see how any rational person could say that a new enzyme and regulator "reduced" function. Obviously, it produced two additional functions. But let's see your data; what do you have?
I cited the article in a previous post
I saw nothing there that indicated that a new enzyme system was a reduction in function. Maybe you should quote the article where it says that. BTW, reduction in function is also evolution. Our recently-evolved inability to ferment plant material in our gut does not mean that we didn't evolve. Our (at least most of us) inability to move our external ears is evolved. Simplification is also evolution.

One generation. Remember what evolution is. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. Genetic data says it took lactose persistence about 20,000 years to spread to roughly a third of humans. It says that it took less than a year for Halls bacteria to evolve a new, regulated enzyme system. Remember how I told you that the time it takes, depends on generation time and selective pressure?
Yes, and to solve Haldane's dilemma Kimura used neutral mutations and genetic drift as his mechanism. Which would take even longer than Natural selection.
You forgot to tell the bacteria. Because no one told them it was impossible, they just went ahead and did it.

One generation. In vertebrates, this happens maybe once every thousand pregnancies. A fusion is a mutation that joins two chromosomes together. But I'm thinking you're a bit foggy on what telomeres have to to with it. In the case of the human no.2 chromosome, the fusion did not remove the telomeres. At the fusion site, we can still find remains of those telomeres, right where they were predicted to be.
I am not talking about just the human no 2 chromsome.
So how long would it take to change all of the telomeres? Or how would all of them change?
Well, not the way you seem to think. You see, they function only to prevent loss of genetic data. In vertebrates, they are just repetitions of TTAGGG. Normally, each cell division results in a shortening of the telomeres. The loss of these elements leads to the death of cells by aging and limits the number of times a cell can divide. If we could find a safe and effective way to restore them, we could greatly increase human life spans.
I don't think so.
Doesn't matter. That's what they do.
Slower rates of aging distinguish humans from our nearest living cousins. Chimpanzees rarely survive their forties while large fractions of women are postmenopausal even in high-mortality hunter–gatherer populations. Cellular and molecular mechanisms for these somatic aging differences remain to be identified, though telomeres might play a role. To find out, we compared telomere lengths across age-matched samples of female chimpanzees and women.
There's a clue in the nature of human development. Chimps reach adulthood much younger than we do. And adult humans look more like infant chimpanzees than we look like adult chimpanzees. It's called "paedomorphosis" and it means we mature later and have longer life spans than chimpanzees.
Image

There was an interesting science fiction story about humans somehow being able to live much longer. In the story, they became much more ape-like as they mature to very great ages. It actually won't work that way, because of the way paedomorphosis actually works. Would you like to learn more about that?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #328

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to William in post #321]
Re the question "How is there reality without God?" are you saying that the universe was created through God observing it?
I am simply expressing what has to be according to the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics the Copenhagen interpretation.

The confirmation that electrons as a particle only come into existence when it is "observed" or "measured" for Difflugia. These types of experiments have caused many physicists to conclude 'Reality Doesn't Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms" https://www.sciencealert.com/reality-do ... t-confirms.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #329

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #329]
I am simply expressing what has to be according to the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics the Copenhagen interpretation.
You're extrapolating phenomena at the quantum level to macroscopic objects like trees falling in a forest, and assuming that a superposition of states (the condition before an observation) is not "real." In the simple coin flipping analogy, while the coin is spinning in the air it is neither heads nor tails because the conditions of headness or tailness only exist once the coin lands. But the coin still has two sides called heads and tails while it is spinning and this is the crude analogy of a superposition of states.

Arguing that reality does not exist until it is observed ignores the reality of a superposition of two or more quantum states, which is what quantum mechanics describes. Collapse of the wavefunction (which includes all of the possible superpositions, or as Feynman described all of the possible paths between one state and another exist simultaneously ... the basis of quantum computers) is the manifestation of a particular state upon observation (the coin landing on either heads or tails).

The tree falling in the forest is not in a superposition of quantum states in the same sense as a quantum object. If you tried to write down the complete wavefunction of a tree, with its zillions of atoms and possible quantum interactions, it would be untenable. You're taking the analogy too far by many orders of magnitude ... quantum effects are negligble for trees falling in forests.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #330

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #323]
That doesn't imply that otherwise unobserved phenomena must necessarily be observed,
That is what it means at the quantum level.
And the latest experiment shows that interaction with matter also does not break the wave function.
  • "Quantum physics predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, a PhD student who worked on the experiment.
  • When this second grating was added, it led to constructive or destructive interference, which is what you'd expect if the atom had travelled both paths, like a wave would. But when the second grating was not added, no interference was observed, as if the atom chose only one path.

    The fact that this second grating was only added after the atom passed through the first crossroads suggests that the atom hadn't yet determined its nature before being measured a second time.

    So if you believe that the atom did take a particular path or paths at the first crossroad, this means that a future measurement was affecting the atom's path, explained Truscott. "The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said. https://www.sciencealert.com/reality-do ... t-confirms
So not only do electrons and photons have to be observed to break the wave function but also atoms have to be observed to break the wave function. So the question must be asked, does reality exist without observation?

Post Reply