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 #369]

First, you're mistakenly assuming that it took the entire semester for the mutations to become fixed. Had you paid better attention, you'd have noticed that I said the entire process took the whole semester, which included more steps than just the fixation (e.g., sequencing the strains and comparing the results, well after the trait evolved and became fixed).

Second, what article are you referring to and what is "it" when you say "This article says that it can happen with just one mutation"?

How long did it take for the "Evolution" in your experiment take to happen? You also said weeks could mean as few as 2 which would be over 1000 generations still over Haldane's prediction.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #369]

First, again you're not paying attention. Haldane developed a model, not a theory, and he acknowledged that since it didn't line up with observed reality, it needed refining/revision (as Barbarian has been trying to show you).

Not according to any of the examples Barbarian has given me or you have given me shows that Haldanes "model" is incorrect. In fact according to the examples you two have given me his estimate is if anything way to low. But keep trying.

Second, remember you've been claiming that evolution is impossible, yet we see populations evolve all the time.

No, you do not. The numbers prove that you do not. If you want to call small changes to the genome "evolution" be my guest but as far as large changes to the genome not going to happen.

[Jose Fly]

How long did it take for the "Evolution" in your experiment take to happen? You also said weeks could mean as few as 2 which would be over 1000 generations still over Haldane's prediction.

Ah, so according to you a novel trait becoming fixed in a population in 2 weeks 1) isn't evolution, and 2) shows that evolution is impossible.

Not according to any of the examples Barbarian has given me or you have given me shows that Haldanes "model" is incorrect.

Again, you're not paying attention. Haldane himself said "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision".

No, you do not. The numbers prove that you do not. If you want to call small changes to the genome "evolution" be my guest but as far as large changes to the genome not going to happen.

So you're taking a model that was developed over half a century ago by a person who acknowledged that it was likely inaccurate, and was about fixation via selection, and trying to turn that into proof that "evolution is impossible".

Wow...that's so bizarre, it's hard to describe.

Plus, there's so much more to this that you're not acknowledging or addressing (see the review article I posted HERE), it's kind of comical to watch. In addition to your earlier and repeated fundamental errors about humans evolving from chimps and each nucleotide difference requiring a separate mutation, you've glossed over some other very crucial aspects to this topic. For example, are you aware that Haldane's model assumes a constant population size? That he didn't incorporate genetic drift into his model? That he oversimplified recombination? That his model only focused on beneficial mutations? That it was focused on weak selection operating on large populations with discrete generations? From the review paper....

Haldane's elegant result necessarily relies on a number of simplifying assumptions. The population size is large and constant, generations are discrete and the number of offspring that each individual contributes to the next generation is Poisson distributed. This last simplification masks an assumption on which the fixation probability critically depends: individuals in such a branching process cannot die before having offspring. In effect, individuals die in such models only by having zero offspring. But since the probability of having zero offspring is completely determined by the mean of the Poisson distribution, there is no room in Haldane's approach to independently specify a survival probability. This will become important as we review some recent work that relaxes this assumption.

Also, as you can see from the review paper I linked to, there have been a ton of work done on estimating of fixation probabilities. Have you read any of them? Or are you just parroting what you've read from creation.com again?

[Miles]

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.

Maybe this has already been pointed out---I didn't bother to read all the replies---but the two "sayings" aren't comparable at all. A comparable tree comparison would read, " No tree is a tree until it's an observed tree." Get it? You can't go around making up fallacious comparisons just to make your point.

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

Why? Because you took a comment by a physicist as gospel and ran with it so as to make a silly conclusion like the one above? BUT, on the off chance this might be true, what is your evidence?

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.

I fail to see the connection between Wheeler's remark and god observing stuff. Perhaps you can explain.

.

[Diogenes]

1) A scientist develops a model of evolution and notes that according to his model, X shouldn't or can't happen.

2) He also notes that since we actually do see X happen, his model is missing something, so he sets to work on figuring out what he missed.

A creationist like ESG grabs #1 and breathlessly declares "This scientist showed that X can't happen", completely ignoring the fuller context of #2 (and hoping no one will notice).

It's like if a physicist developed a model that said rocks can't roll downhill, then notes that since we see rocks roll downhill all the time the model must be wrong, and someone like ESG twists that into "This scientist showed that rocks can't roll downhill".
....
Such is the nature of creationism.

Perfect description!
Over the years I've seen exactly this pattern over and over. Essentially this device uses the creationist's ignorance of evolution to argue against it. Part of this syndrome is using old and discarded details and theories from Darwin's day and later, claiming these are current theories. It shows a basic ignorance of science and/or a willful refusal to understand that unlike religious dogma, science welcomes change; that the very nature of science is to discard mistakes while trying to understand new facts, always moving closer to true understanding.

The creation dogmatist does the opposite, clinging desperately to ideas thousands of years old no matter how absurd and no matter how strongly facts explode their beliefs.

[Jose Fly]

Also, specific to the question of the time necessary for human-chimp common ancestry, Ian Musgrave over at the Panda's Thumb addressed that a fair bit ago...

How many benefical mutations? While the majority of variation is neutral, the question remains exactly how much variation is due to selection, and does it break Haldane’s “speed limit”. Recent comparisons of Human and Chimp genomes, using the Macaque as an out group, have given us a good idea of how many genes have been fixed since the last common ancestor of chimps and humans (Bakewell, 2007).

154

Actually, that’s 154 of 13,888 genes. Given that we have around 22,000 genes [3] in our genome (http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/index.html), then if the same percentage of beneficial mutations holds for the rest of the genome, no more than 238 fixed beneficial mutations is what separates us from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.

You are probably sitting there astonished that we are around 240 genes away from our last common ancestor with the chimp and saying “this can’t be right”[4] (how much did the guess you wrote down differ from the real thing?). However, this result agrees with previous estimates of the number of positively selected genes (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006). You can argue until the cows come home about whether you can get around Haldane’s assumptions using truncation selection, soft selection or whatever, the plain fact is that humans and the last common ancestor of humans and chimps are separated by far fewer fixed beneficial mutations than even Haldane’s limit allows.

Now, it’s likely that the above values is an underestimate, and the some weakly selected genes have been missed, but it is in accord with previous studies using smaller gene sets (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006). Even if you say we missed half of the genes that underwent selection (very unlikely), the number of beneficial genes fixed by natural selection would be around 480, and the real number is certainly less (Arbiza, 2006).

The above study only covered protein coding genes, not regulatory sequences, and most biologists expect that changes in regulatory sequences played an important role in evolution. Getting at the number of beneficial mutations in regulatory genes that have been fixed by natural selection is a lot harder, but it seems like around 100 regulatory genes may have been selected (Donaldson & Gottgens 2006, Kehrer-Sawatzki & Cooper 2007). Again, even if we set the number of regulatory genes that have been selected as the same number as the most wildly optimistic estimate of protein coding genes fixed by natural selection, then we end up with 960 fixed beneficial mutations, below ReMine’s calculation of Haldane’s limit [5]. This means Haldane’s dilemma is irrelevant to human evolution.

He also said the following, which I very much agree with: "Haldane’s dilemma has never been a problem for evolution, but the technical nature of the arguments involved made it difficult to clearly demonstrate anti-evolutionists misuse of the “dilemma”."

In a previous job I was annually tasked with populating and running a model that estimated the effective population size of a species we were studying. Needless to say, it was ridiculously technical and required me to learn way more population genetics than I ever anticipated. I basically had to go back to school and take two or three courses just to get to the point where I could understand what I was doing with the model (mostly so I could spot any errors).

My point is, just reading an article on creation.com and parroting it here without understanding most of the technical aspects of the science is like someone reading a children's book about Noah's Ark and thinking that qualifies them to evaluate translations of ancient Hebrew. As the research I cited in THIS THREAD observed, a big factor behind internet creationists thinking themselves qualified to evaluate and reject the conclusions of actual experts is a lack of humility.

But as I often note, it can be fascinating to watch.

[Jose Fly]

Perfect description!
Over the years I've seen exactly this pattern over and over. Essentially this device uses the creationist's ignorance of evolution to argue against it. Part of this syndrome is using old and discarded details and theories from Darwin's day and later, claiming these are current theories. It shows a basic ignorance of science and/or a willful refusal to understand that unlike religious dogma, science welcomes change; that the very nature of science is to discard mistakes while trying to understand new facts, always moving closer to true understanding.

The creation dogmatist does the opposite, clinging desperately to ideas thousands of years old no matter how absurd and no matter how strongly facts explode their beliefs.

Yup. So many interactions with creationists eventually come down to folks like us trying to get them to understand that 1) science doesn't deal in proof, 2) everything in science is open to potential revision, and 3) science embraces change as a means to increase accuracy over time.

But from what I've seen, that mostly falls on deaf ears. A lot of creationists have a basic psychological need for certainty, which religion provides. But when they dip a toe into the realm of science and find out science is kind of the opposite of that (everything is tentative), they see it as a weakness or flaw. I can't tell you how many times I've seen creationists start threads where they point to a previous conclusion being altered after the emergence of new data, and crow about how it shows those smarty pants scientists don't really know anything.

I figure it's similar to how I was often baffled by the sort of "religious thinking" I saw while growing up in church. I never really got it and it still doesn't make sense to me. So maybe it's the same for a lot of religious folks when they peek into science.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #366]

But however small may be the selective advantage the new character will spread, provided it is present in enough individuals of the population to prevent disappearance by mere random extinction...An average advantage of one in a million will be quite effective in most species.
J.B.S. Haldane, The Causes of Evolution, 1932

The quote still does not make the numbers work.

Just pointing out that your own guy disagrees with you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

How long did it take for the "Evolution" in your experiment take to happen? You also said weeks could mean as few as 2 which would be over 1000 generations still over Haldane's prediction.

Ah, so according to you a novel trait becoming fixed in a population in 2 weeks 1) isn't evolution, and 2) shows that evolution is impossible.

No, it is not evolution. In conversations like this, evolutionists like to try to divorce the concept of small increments of change and the concept of common descent from one form of life to another.

Evolutionists like to try to make the case that these small changes are examples of evolution. And then they like to try to make the leap to common descent without proving common descent.

Evolution tries to make the case that these are equivalent but the math says that they are not.

• Meriam-Webster
  : descent with modification from preexisting species: cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms: the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
  
  Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
  —Stephen Jay Gould

Again, you're not paying attention. Haldane himself said "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision".

His conclusions do need drastic revision because according to all of your examples, his conclusion of 300 generations is way too low.

So you're taking a model that was developed over half a century ago by a person who acknowledged that it was likely inaccurate, and was about fixation via selection, and trying to turn that into proof that "evolution is impossible".

Correction I did prove that it was impossible. But Haldane just gave reasons for observations that all of the examples show. It is really just simple math that disproves evolution. Generations are divided by the number of mutations that occurred during those generations. Real life shows that common descent evolution cannot happen.

Plus, there's so much more to this that you're not acknowledging or addressing (see the review article I posted HERE), it's kind of comical to watch. In addition to your earlier and repeated fundamental errors about humans evolving from chimps and each nucleotide difference requiring a separate mutation, you've glossed over some other very crucial aspects to this topic. For example, are you aware that Haldane's model assumes a constant population size? That he didn't incorporate genetic drift into his model? That he oversimplified recombination? That his model only focused on beneficial mutations? That it was focused on weak selection operating on large populations with discrete generations? From the review paper....

Haldane's elegant result necessarily relies on a number of simplifying assumptions. The population size is large and constant, generations are discrete and the number of offspring that each individual contributes to the next generation is Poisson distributed. This last simplification masks an assumption on which the fixation probability critically depends: individuals in such a branching process cannot die before having offspring. In effect, individuals die in such models only by having zero offspring. But since the probability of having zero offspring is completely determined by the mean of the Poisson distribution, there is no room in Haldane's approach to independently specify a survival probability. This will become important as we review some recent work that relaxes this assumption.

Ok fine SHOW ME YOUR NUMBERS. Do the calculations that prove evolution that you are correct. Use your own examples if you wish. Or pick new examples. The numbers do not match evolution they match creation.

Also, as you can see from the review paper I linked to, there have been a ton of work done on estimating of fixation probabilities. Have you read any of them? Or are you just parroting what you've read from creation.com again?

Those that are "parroting" a belief cannot prove what they are saying. The mathematics does not support what they are saying and there is not experimental evidence supporting what they are saying.

You cannot show how your view is supported by mathematics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #374]

Maybe this has already been pointed out---I didn't bother to read all the replies---but the two "sayings" aren't comparable at all. A comparable tree comparison would read, " No tree is a tree until it's an observed tree." Get it? You can't go around making up fallacious comparisons just to make your point.

I may be pushing my example a little to much to Berkeley's philosophy which is not what quantum mechanics is saying.

This is from someone's blog but it does do a nice job of explaining what I am trying.

In terms of Berkeley’s philosophy that nothing exists until you perceive it
and whether this is the same as the observer effect in quantum physics –
it isn’t, really, because Berkley says the tree doesn’t exist if you aren’t observing it.

The metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics says the tree not only exists, but it exists in every possible state – both fallen and not fallen – simultaneously, and it is only when you observe the tree that it falls – or doesn’t, depending on your observation.

And if you take into account multiverse theory, the tree actually falls in one reality, and it doesn’t fall in another.

So not only does the tree exist in every possible state, simultaneously, so do you, along with every possible moment in time, and what you observe is your limited awareness moving through a tiny fraction of those possible moments. https://inmysacredspace.com/if-a-tree-f ... s-looking/

Why? Because you took a comment by a physicist as gospel and ran with it so as to make a silly conclusion like the one above? BUT, on the off chance this might be true, what is your evidence?

Objective reality does exist. A tree does fall in the forest whether someone sees it or not.

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.
I fail to see the connection between Wheeler's remark and god observing stuff. Perhaps you can explain.

The only history that exists is the history that we observe.