And you think copying from a different secondary source, rather than Darwin’s own works, is the way to show what Darwin actually said?
You haven’t found it. Probably because you aren’t even trying to understand Darwin’s text, you’re only looking for quotes to support your views. You’re quote-mining.
No. You studied quantum physics online from various sources, you say. This test is an opportunity for you to prove to everyone that you are not lying about that. If you are not, then you have no reason to not answer the challenge. You may ask things concerning the wording of questions in the challenge (since English is but my third language, and jargon may not be perfectly consistent between all sources), or quirks of notation (since notation may not be perfectly consistent between all sources). I will not be debating the meaning of “having any grasp at all of quantum mechanics”. Pass the test to prove you have it; fail and leave all to conclude you don’t.
Throwing around buzzwords while completely avoiding math indicates that you do not understand the concepts. Period. You’re faking it and everything else.
I told you already. The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.
For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hameroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.
I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more.
I also can’t find any other critical review online besides the ones I remember reading awhile back.
Not quite, he explained why present observations don’t show signs of what we would have expected if his theory was true. There is a difference. He said we would expect to find more fossils in the future, which alleviate or solve this problem:
For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to us to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
You have got to be kidding me. I am not even going to respond further to this post after I went out my way to provide all those primary and secondary sources I listed. Seriously, go read the rest of them if one them is not enough.
Not quite, I said in post 716 that I only need to know the basics of quantum physics and read ENOUGH about it online to make my case.
Now, when I said this the second time, I forgot to include the word “enough” again. But, since I said it the first time, I don’t think me forgetting to mention it again is supposed to be a big deal.
This is , of course, important to point out because my research was very specific and tailored to what I was trying to argue, which did not require me to know the mathematical side of it.
This is not the purpose of why I came on this forum to present these ideas. Instead, I came to present my case here for it to be critiqued by experts so I can improve on it as much as I possibly can. So far, It has been a success and my understanding of this theory and my arguments has improved greatly. I am confident we are almost done completing it.
However, my idea of completion is fleshing out all the issues with the theory that cannot be resolved either within this forum or at this present time and making sure it is cohesive or comprehensible
No, it indicates that it is not needed to make my case or it is not important for it.
If you haven’t read them, you can’t say that! Now, have you read any, or not? Answer the question!
No, I can say that because the editor informally peer-reviewed it himself. This is why I did not read those additional replies.
@Meerkat_SK5 's second failed attempt at quoting Darwin at least gives the part where Darwin actually explains why we don’t see and shouldn’t expect to see what @Meerkat_SK5 thinks Darwin expected. Too bad he cut and pasted without reading.
Not quite, he explained why present observations don’t show signs of what we would have expected if his theory was true. There is a difference. He suggested indirectly that we would expect to find more fossils in the future, which alleviate or solve this problem:
For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to us to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
Your quote doesn’t say what you think it does. You entirely misunderstand what Darwin is saying there. You might try actually reading the Origin of Species instead of just looking for brief quotes. After all, it’s “one long argument”.
How so?
If you actually read for comprehension you wouldn’t have to ask. Try that first.
No, you can’t say that! I don’t care what you think the editor did or did not do. I don’t care how prestigious you think the journal is. I don’t care about any of your ill-conceived, ignorant, and wrong guesses about how peer-review works!
If you haven’t read the critical reviews YOURSELF, you do not get to talk about it.
If you argue, you’re wrong and I don’t care. You either understand, or you’re wrong. So…
Do you understand?
If Meer could actually read for comprehension this thread would be 600 comments shorter.
I think he would at least be able to try to read for comprehension, which he hasn’t done either.
Nonsense John. Darwin’s statement clearly emphasized that the geological record is an imperfect and incomplete representation of Earth’s history, and the gaps and apparent abruptness in the fossil record are a result of the limited and fragmented evidence available to us.
But, this would not mean that a large-scale gradual transition would not be an expected result from his theory.
More importantly, He never suggested that we would not be able to find enough fossils that would show them closely joined all together.
Instead, he suggested that if we could see a more complete record, we would see a gradual transition from one form of life to another. This is why he specifically said…
Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to us to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
So it still would be an expected result.
You are also missing my overall point.
In the past, I specifically said that descent is unparsimonious because it assumes an unobservable process of transmutation of species. In contrast, design does not assume anything. Design wins here!!!
So even if you and @misterme987 were right, it would just reinforce what I have been arguing all this time.
Ok. I understand but I don’t get you overall point here. But, if that is your personal opinion or standard, then I can get your point.
I think you will find this to be a far more pervasive viewpoint on this forum than a mere “personal opinion or standard” of @CrisprCAS9’s.
My point is you need to actually read the critical reviews. I would have thought that extremely obvious.
It’s not just ‘my’ standard. This is the kind of thing you learn in upper division/graduate level science courses. About how to read, understand, and eventually participate in peer-review. If you’re going to promote something in your work, you can’t just read one side of it.
I use methods in my work and those methods have limitations. I know and understand those limitations because I’ve read more than just one review of it. I read the original works, the replies, the alternate methods, and a dozen primary works using each. Because I care about accuracy. And I’m confident that everyone else in my program has done the same for relevant methods for their own work.
Nope. You don’t understand what “the difficulties above discussed” are. They are the objections to his theory, in this case that the fossil record doesn’t display those innumerable fine transitions. The difficulties disappear precisely because the fossil record is fragmentary and so should not be expected to show those fine transitions. That’s what he’s actually saying. The transitions still happened, but we don’t expect to see them. And Darwin is right about that.
That’s not how science works. The real question is what we expect to observe given common descent vs. what we expect to observe given separate creation. You’re saying that separate creation is superior because it has no expectations and so observations can never be incompatible with it. That’s not a strength.
In that case it did not require you to know any quantum mechanics, period, and it cannot be an actual anchor to what you were trying to argue.
As I said, I will not be debating the meaning of “having any grasp at all of quantum mechanics”. Pass the test to prove you have it; fail and leave all to conclude you don’t. There is no arguing that you know any quantum mechanics, let alone “enough” to make any substantive case relying on it, if you cannot pass a test this generous.
Had @Meerkat_SK5 actually read Origin he might have known this. But he chose to rely on secondary sources and then quote-mine instead.