Does evolution have a purpose?

[Valjean]

You may say strong evidence. Nevertheless however one looks at it, it is not proof.

YT, we don't have proof that the Earth is round, or circles the sun; that germs cause disease, or that there's a giant Ferris wheel in London -- or that London exists, for that matter. All we have is varying degrees of evidence. So quit it with this proof kick. The best we can do is assess the evidence and draw the best conclusions.

As it stands, there's very strong evidence for these things. Maybe not a much as there is for evolution, but I'd be willing to bet that our planet isn't flat.

As for God, that's another story. No empirical evidence, just legend and hearsay, and a large population of believers. Yet you seem to give unquestioning credence to God and Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Quantum's not needed to understand the simple mechanisms of evolution.
Again, not applicable -- and confusing.
Is this a hypothetical? -- cause no such thing ever happened.
Whole lot of sudden goin' on, here.... And what would cause such an 'update'? Hasn't the intelligence we have now gotten us in enough trouble? Well, you've got me convinced. I'm off to look for a bigger motorcycle helmet.

In actuality, the ancestor commonly thought of as a "common ancestor" is still v-e-r-y conjectural. Very to the point as being virtually unknown. Which again makes me wonder -- ancestors to chimpanzees? Gorillas? bonobos? hmmm....I'm sure there's always something to learn. Or postulate on. -) Now then -- the question is what IS a species?

 

[shunyadragon]

QUOTE="YoursTrue, post: 7453955, member: 63290"]It is reasonably predictable that viruses mutate. It is not reasonable to think they mutate to anything but a virus.
I can't say what is or is not considered by some scientists as what may be thought of as human by fossil finds.[/QUOTE]
Not a coherent response.

There are many scientists all over the Africa, Asia and Europe that have found and researched the fossil evidence of the homo sapiens over the past 300,000 years. This includes our related cousins like the Neanderthals. By the way there literally hundreds of Neolithic human sites in Asia, Africa and Europe dating between 100,000 and 10,000 years old. All this published in peer reviewed scietific journals. I can continue to cite these journal articles as manyas you wish, but the problem is you will not likely read them nor understand them

Please respond coherently with an awareness of the science involved

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you expect me to take from another discussion forum? I've actually studied the mathematics of quantum mechanics.

So have I. The reference is reasonable accurate in terms of the nature of randomness in the physics of Quantum Mechanics. You cannot simply hand wave references.

It's not just timing. The outcome of individual 'measurements' cannot be predicted. That means that if you have a set up that has 50% chance of one of two outcomes, such as if you entangle two particles so that the total spin must be zero and measure the spin of one, or the experiment I described earlier, then you can go on generating random 1s and 0s for as many times as you do the experiment.

In nature it is the timing of events within a predictable range of outcomes.

No, no idea what you're even trying to say there. If hypotheses have been falsified, they are irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant, The predictability and consistency in nature is the basis of Methodological Naturalism and science. If nature was not fundamentally deterministic than science would not work This is particularly true of Quantum Mechanics.

There are hypotheses and conjectures that would make QM deterministic, but they have not been tested and so have no evidence to support them.

'Arguing from ignorance' and speculation without references. You need to go back to your original post where you attempted to justify an ID scenario based on 'chance' and randomness in nature, which is not a scientific perspective.

Your original post #732 "
"The problem is that you then disappear into an infinite regress. How did this 'origin' come about? By chance?"

Infinite regress nor is your use of 'chance' are not viable math perspective in the reality of the nature and origin of our physical existence

On a macro scale, this is pretty much true because we deal with very large numbers of particles, but it's not fundamentally true according to the currant formulation of QM.

I believe the predictability and the ability of the falsification of theories and hypothesis in QM make it fundamentally deterministic. The variability in nature, Quantum Mechanics and all of science can be defined within a predictable range.

It is true that contemporary Quantum number generators can produce a truly random series, but this isdefined within specified range by design.

 

[ratiocinator]

The reference is reasonable accurate in terms of the nature of randomness in the physics of Quantum Mechanics. You cannot simply hand wave references.

It wasn't a reference, it was a conversation on a forum.

The individual measurements all fall within a predictable range of outcomes.

Yes, and randomly vary within those possibilities. You seem to want to have it both ways for some bizarre reason. Just because we can predict the probabilities, doesn't mean that we have a deterministic system:-

"In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."​

This is clearly not true for a 'measurement' in QM, as the same article goes on to say:-

"In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."​

It is extremely relevant...

If a theory or hypothesis has been falsified, then it's wrong, so it obviously isn't relevant.

The predictability and consistency in nature is the basis of Methodological Naturalism and science. If nature was not fundamentally deterministic than science would not work This is particularly true of Quantum Mechanics.

The probabilities and randomness within those probabilities are a fundamental part of QM, for example, the Born rule.

You need to go back to your original post where you attempted to justify an ID scenario...

I never attempted to "justify an ID scenario", I just pointed out that your claim that "The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic" was highly questionable.

I believe the predictability and the ability of the falsification of theories and hypothesis in QM make it fundamentally deterministic.

I really have no idea why you keep going on about falsification, if something has been falsified, it is false. You are also clearly wrong as things stand because it's quite easy to prepare a quantum state such that the outcome of a subsequent measurement will not always be the same, which is what determinism would mean (see quote above).

 

[metis]

It is reasonably predictable that viruses mutate. It is not reasonable to think they mutate to anything but a virus.

It stands to even the most basic logic and science that this has to be incorrect.

For example, if we go back 1 billion years ago, there was nothing but single-celled organisms according to the overwhelming fossil evidence. However, when we get to 600 million years ago, we suddenly start seeing multicellular organisms. Logically, one had to lead to the other through changes.

Now, what evidence can you provide that humans and whales were always here?

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is clearly not true for a 'measurement' in QM, as the same article goes on to say:-

"In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."​

I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that..

I just pointed out that your claim that "The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic" was highly questionable..

I would have thought, that any QM theory needs to predict in the same way that Einstein's theory of relativity would predict.
..or are the consequences of relativity somehow flawed?

 

[shunyadragon]

It wasn't a reference, it was a conversation on a forum.


Yes, and randomly vary within those possibilities. You seem to want to have it both ways for some bizarre reason. Just because we can predict the probabilities, doesn't mean that we have a deterministic system:-

"In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."​

I never and I mean never said there was no randomness. This would a rejection of NEwtonian determinism where there is no randomness.

This only refers to individual cause and effect outcomes, and There is NO randomness in fundamentally deterministic long term predicability of the chain of cause and effect events that occur withing definable and predictable patterns that may be falsified as hypothesis and theories.

This is clearly not true for a 'measurement' in QM, as the same article goes on to say:-

"In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic." [/quote]

Your selective references in reference to the randomness of individual events that do not address the predictability of the over all non-randomness of the nature of our physical existence;

You still have not respond to you quote I referenced.​

If a theory or hypothesis has been falsified, then it's wrong, so it obviously isn't relevant.


The probabilities and randomness within those probabilities are a fundamental part of QM, for example, the Born rule.

It is absolutely relevant even in the Born rule it involves a predictable nature of our physical existence that may be expressed as a falsified theory or hypothesis. Born rule wold not be a Born rule without fundamental determinism. Your ignoring the foundation of science that is the reason science works, a fundamental deterministic physical existence. This not the Newtonian determinism of the past.

I never attempted to "justify an ID scenario", I just pointed out that your claim that "The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic" was highly questionable.

If this were not so than science would not work. You still have not replied to justify this statement of yours: Your original post #732 "
"The problem is that you then disappear into an infinite regress. How did this 'origin' come about? By chance?"

It is clearly right out of ID references.
Still waiting. . .

I really have no idea why you keep going on about falsification, if something has been falsified, it is false. You are also clearly wrong as things stand because it's quite easy to prepare a quantum state such that the outcome of a subsequent measurement will not always be the same, which is what determinism would mean (see quote above).

. . . because as I have repeated a number of times it is the basis of science fundamental determinism that the nature of our physical existence is NOT random nor by chance.[/quote]

 

[Valjean]

In actuality, the ancestor commonly thought of as a "common ancestor" is still v-e-r-y conjectural. Very to the point as being virtually unknown. Which again makes me wonder -- ancestors to chimpanzees? Gorillas? bonobos? hmmm....I'm sure there's always something to learn. Or postulate on. -) Now then -- the question is what IS a species?

What's this have to do with quantum mechanics?

Common ancestor? Singular? Or are you talking about a common population? Are you looking for a first on a continuum?

 

[ratiocinator]

I never and I mean never said there was no randomness.

Determinism means no randomness.

It is absolutely relevant even in the Born rule it involves a predictable nature of our physical existence that may be expressed as a falsified theory or hypothesis.

Again, a falsified theory or hypothesis is one that has made an incorrect prediction about the result of an observation or experiment, it is therefore either outright wrong or in need of modification. You seem to think that 'falsified' means the opposite of what it actually does mean or perhaps you're confusing it with a well tested but potentially falsifiable theory?

If this were not so than science would not work. You still have not replied to justify this statement of yours: Your original post #732 "
"The problem is that you then disappear into an infinite regress. How did this 'origin' come about? By chance?"

It is clearly right out of ID references.

You even managed to get the post number wrong and I was arguing against somebody who was was trying to support a god by claiming the laws of physics would require an origin because they couldn't come about by 'chance' and pointing out that following that logic would lead to the same question about the supposed origin (#733). For the avoidance of doubt, I'm an atheist who rejects ID as pseudoscience. Whether the laws of physics are deterministic or not is irrelevant to the point.

 

[shunyadragon]

In actuality, the ancestor commonly thought of as a "common ancestor" is still v-e-r-y conjectural. Very to the point as being virtually unknown. Which again makes me wonder -- ancestors to chimpanzees? Gorillas? bonobos? hmmm....I'm sure there's always something to learn. Or postulate on. -) Now then -- the question is what IS a species?

Do you have any scientific reference to document this incoherent foolishness?

 

[ratiocinator]

In actuality, the ancestor commonly thought of as a "common ancestor" is still v-e-r-y conjectural.

No, it is not. There is plentiful evidence that has been repeatedly given to you (multiple times by myself alone, not to mention many other posters) that you've simply ignored.

 

[shunyadragon]

Determinism means no randomness.

Absolutely NO. You are referring to strict Causal Determinism. I go with Popper's definition of determinism in terms of predictability also, in his book The Open Universe. I call this functional determinism. Popper argued against Classical Causal Determinism, and considered it indeterminate.

Determinism from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics,

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-randomness-can-arise-from-determinism-20191014/

How Randomness Can Arise From Determinism

Playing with a simple bean machine illustrates how deterministic laws can produce probabilistic, random-seeming behavior.

s nature inherently random? According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is, explaining why we can’t precisely predict the motions of single particles. In the famous double-slit experiment (which, as Richard Feynman declared, “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics”), we cannot predict where exactly an individual photon passing through two slits will land on the photo-sensitive wall on the other side. But we can make extremely precise predictions of the distribution of multiple particles, suggesting that nature may be deterministic after all. Indeed, we can predict to many decimal places what the distribution of billions of photons shot at the double slit will look like.

This dichotomy between unpredictable individual behavior and precise group behavior is not unique to quantum mechanics. There are many novel and strange aspects of quantum physics — particle-wave duality, quantum entanglement and the uncertainty principle, for instance — but probabilistic equations that give precise predictions of ensemble behavior are not among them. We see this phenomenon wherever very large numbers of like elements interact, such as in thermodynamics, where we can predict collective measures like heat and pressure with precision, though we may be completely ignorant about the paths taken by individual molecules.

In our August puzzle, we debated whether randomness or determinism lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, which I characterized as team B (Niels Bohr) versus team E (Albert Einstein). Team B sees the unpredictability of particle behavior as evidence that at the fundamental level of the universe, determinism is replaced by intrinsic, objective randomness. Team E contends that this randomness is merely a sign of our ignorance of a deeper level of deterministic causation."

The rest of the article is na interesting read,

 

[ratiocinator]

In our August puzzle, we debated whether randomness or determinism lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, which I characterized as team B (Niels Bohr) versus team E (Albert Einstein). Team B sees the unpredictability of particle behavior as evidence that at the fundamental level of the universe, determinism is replaced by intrinsic, objective randomness. Team E contends that this randomness is merely a sign of our ignorance of a deeper level of deterministic causation."

Which pretty much says the same things as when I entered the argument (#738), that science has not "determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic", it depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics (#740). Going to somebody's puzzle page is getting pretty desperate.

QM (notably Bell's inequalities) means that you have to give up on some classical ideas at least. Einstein is generally considered to have been wrong about QM in this regard.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which pretty much says the same things as when I entered the argument (#738),

No.

. . . that science has not "determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic", it depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics (#740). Going to somebody's puzzle page is getting pretty desperate.

QM (notably Bell's inequalities) means that you have to give up on some classical ideas at least. Einstein is generally considered to have been wrong about QM in this regard.

Selectively responding to the reference gets you nowhere. Your stuck an in old indeterminate 'Causal Determinism.' I am using Popper's concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have any scientific reference to document this incoherent foolishness?

Here's a question. Science and technology change rapidly, but has human nature changed?

 

[YoursTrue]

No.



Selectively responding to the reference gets you nowhere. Your stuck an in old indeterminate 'Causal Determinism.' I am using Popper's concept.

Etc and etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have any scientific reference to document this incoherent foolishness?

So you know exactly, precisely and determinately that you do or do not have a common ancestor with gorillas, monkeys, bonobos and more look alikes?

 

[Valjean]

Here's a question. Science and technology change rapidly, but has human nature changed?

Not fast enough.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you know exactly, precisely and determinately that you do or do not have a common ancestor with gorillas, monkeys, bonobos...

The evidence is way, way beyond any hint of reasonable doubt, yes. What's more, it's been given to you and all you do is ignore it.