It is not the real issue of this op. The real issue is if God can be a useful “scientific” hypothesis. I think the evidence supports this.
But you have given no argument to this effect anywhere in this thread. So whether that is the topic of the thread, your output has been off the mark in that endeavor.
As usual you just offer a declaration of opinion without supplying any argument or evidence. And please - if you’re going to offer up something you think is evidence - don’t just do another vacuous namedrop of a topic you imagine is halfway related, like “population genetics math” or “neutral evolution models”. Explain yourself in more detail. Argue your case for once.
3 Likes
You presented Sal’s flower as evidence, and I have explained how it supports nothing about God, one way or the other. What you think is not relevant.
1 Like
This says it all.
We all do this at times Rum.
NO, this has nothing to do with the different interpretations of quantum mechanics because the Orch-OR theory is supposed to be a “violation” of quantum mechanics where the non-local mind can also collaspe the wave-function as well as material states. More importantly, the Orch-OR theory is supposed be a scientific theory like string theory that proposes a mechanism as to HOW quantum mechanics becomes classical. Wikipedia:
“The mechanism of collapse is not specified by standard quantum mechanics, which needs to be extended if this approach is correct, meaning that Objective Collapse is more of a theory than an interpretation. Examples include the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory and the Penrose interpretation." [emphasis added]
For example, only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” demonstrate if I am not mistaken, of course [just ask for reference]. But, I am not suggesting that the conscious observer’s ability to collapse a waveform means they can control or affect reality using their mind alone like some sort of ESP psychic power.
Instead, since the mind is supposed to be non-local under Orch-OR theory, the observer effect results automatically becomes relevant and supportive to my overall case for God because the non-physical mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.
For example, the observer must first specify or think of which particular wave-function he intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Then, only the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he chooses between the many possible outcomes.
This fundamentally why I believe the experimental methods I proposed to test my hypothesis are valid unless you can show me otherwise, which I will get to later.
Here it is:
Scientists Identify Fleeting Quantum Jitters that Drive Mutation Rate in DNA (genengnews.com)
Quantum Entanglement within DNA: Where do we stand? | by Samarth Sandeep | Iff Technology | Medium
No, all a biochemist or biologist has to do to falsify the hypothesis is produce (new) digital information within any possible natural condition that does not require his assistance. The Miller-Urey and Lenski experiments are the best at potentially doing this in my view. The reason why those experiments would disprove it is because “there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged”. A positive result like that in those experiments would disprove that statement I just highlighted.
This means that the second round of experiments where the human observer is inserted into the experiment is not supposed to make it falsifiable but potentially verifiable.
Yes, they are different. My mistake. I should have said, “God guided all life on earth”, which is actually the same thing as saying "an intelligent designer must exist to guide all life on earth”.
This is because God is “Necessary” and “Personal”. He is an intelligent designer or personal like us, but unlike us, he must or needs to exist in order for us to exist, which was what I was getting at before.
Right, I agree if I understand you correctly. This is why another experiment showing an unguided process is required (which ALSO must be in accordance with the second experiment that shows a guided process) in order to show there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged. The unguided experiment would support the “necessary” attribute of this intelligent designer, which is something that only God possesses rather than some alien designer.
Now, it is ok if you still disagree that this could be a way to verify this hypothesis because providing a way to falsify this idea is more important. But, keep in mind, I am not the only one who has made a similar inference in regards to these type of experimental results:
“…After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.)”
Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications
Since you think Sal’s flower is evidence for God, what would a hypothetical Sal non-flower be that would be evidence against God?
If you can’t come up with one, then Sal’s flower is NOT evidence for God.
3 Likes
NO, we are making a lot of progress even if it ends up being a dead end. The progress has just become slower than thought it would be. However, I think having theists enter into the discussion will change this.
NO, once we are done here, I will incorporate a better common design model.
If a precise definition of a species is unnecessary, then can you give me an example of what you mean. For instance, would you consider a Willy mammoth a species that has become extinct?
In regards to mutations, Yes.
No, I am saying all life on earth past, present, and future.
Wikipedia:
“Classical theism is a form of monotheism. Whereas most monotheists agree that God is, at minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good,[1] classical theism asserts that God is both immanent (encompassing or manifested in the material world) and simultaneously transcendent (independent of the material universe); simple, and having such attributes as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.[2] A key concept in classical theism is that “created beings” (ie, material phenomena, whether sentient biological organisms or insentient matter) are dependent for their existence on the one supreme divine Being.”
In other words, it’s not referring to a God from a religion like the Christian God.
Self-collasping universal wave-function would be the scientific definition you are looking for.
Hi Witchdoc
I agree that God is unfalsifiable as a scientific hypothesis. What is falsifiable is Gods direct involvement in an observation. The prior case I made was gravity where Gods direct involvement is falsifiable by Newton’s and Einsteins models that pointed to mass as the direct cause.
In the case of Sal’s flower if we could build a model which showed how changes were fixed in a population by reproduction and isolation then we could falsify God as the direct cause. I would think that something like a flower with the gene sets of different species of sparrows might be a candidate to successfully build such a model.
@Meerkat_SK5 does this sound reasonable?
Honestly, I don’t know whether that method would falsify the entire hypothesis like what I proposed. We will have to just work that out in the future when I create another topic that incorporates common design.
What are the distinctive features of “common design” as compared to common descent?
If you can’t come up with particular observable, testable hypotheses of “common design”, it is useless.
And is there any particular good reason why would an omnipotent God limit himself to “common design”?
1 Like
Define digital information?
Again stop positing unsuitable experimental models for testing your poorly defined hypothesis. The Miller-Urey experiment tried to simulate possible prebiotic atmospheric conditions to see if the building blocks or simple molecules relevant to extant biological systems would form and not to produce digital information (whatever that means). Lenski’s LTEE is being run to get answers to a number of questions about evolution, not to produce digital information.
In addition, there was no (human- or higher animal-level) consciousness either even after simple life emerged. Bacteria, Archaea and lots of Eukaryotes ruled this planet for billions of year and were unconscious all through that time. Stop stressing an irrelevant point.
Just more nonsense.
Again, with this logic tumorigenesis experiments wherein the oncologist researcher heavily interferes with her experimental system would show that God is the divine intelligence behind tumor development in the lab and in people.
This seems like a quote mine. Look at the quote with more context:
So the author’s statement here applies mostly to multi-step prebiotic syntheses, not all prebiotic syntheses. Next time, add in a bit of context.
Umm duhh! Nigerian Catholic Agnostic here. I doubt the conversation will change much regardless of the religious views of the commenters.
4 Likes
What’s wrong with the models we already have regarding fixation?
I sometimes think you just type whatever random sentence comes into your head without regard to how it might relate to the issue you are trying to discuss.
4 Likes
i think that Bill is probably talking about the time that require for few neutral mutations to get a new function. for instance: if we need at least 3 specific amino acids to get a new function (in many cases we will probably need more than that). we can calculate the time to get that new function. first, do we agree with that main assumption? if so i will continue.
1 Like
But do we? How do you know?
Reference please.
We do not.
3 Likes
Why do you need to wait? It seems to me that a more concrete and clearer model would advance your title effort.
As far as I know, there was never any such thing as a Willy mammoth. If you mean a woolly mammoth, then yes, that’s an extinct species.
Does that include every single somatic mutation, every cancer, every transition or transversion, every indel? Is God directly causing the 100 or so germ line mutations in every person?
Why just life? Why not every rain drop, every beta-decay, every meteor?
Sounds like everything, not just life.
Sounds like a sciency buzz-phrase to me. It’s not a definition, and I don’t see any relevance to evolution.
1 Like
Evolution can work with whatever number of mutations be they selective or neutral or mixed to gain a new function. Sometimes one mutation is enough to evolve new functions.
How do I know that sometimes one mutation can suffice to confer a new function? @scd read below:
A nice chart summarizing the above statements from the same paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04026-w
Citations?
You can’t. If you feel otherwise, provide citations.
No.
1 Like
What exactly in that paper supports your claim below?
1 Like