Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works


In 1846 astronomers in Europe discovered the planet Neptune. It wasn’t the first time Neptune had been seen, but it was the first time the object was identified as a planet. And how did the astronomers know where to look, and know that the object was Neptune? Because the position of Neptune had been computed and predicted. So they looked, and sure enough, there was Neptune. In fact similar predictions had been made independently by different scientists. The predictions were based on observations that the next closest planet, Uranus, did not quite follow its expected orbit. Was Newtonian physics wrong? Perhaps Newton’s Law of Gravity broke down at longer distances. Or perhaps there was a perturbing force from another planet. It was the latter and Newtonian physics survived a strong test.  Read more

One problem- there isn’t any evolutionary theory.
That's not true, or maybe it is. There are lots of theories. They often conflict. They may not even rise to the level of theory. What is needed is coherence. Modern Evolutionary Theory is incoherent. Mung
Further notes:
“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. Preceding quote taken from this following video; Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080 LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics - Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, - March 5-9, 2007 Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e., a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..MARB33005B Divinely Planted Quantum States - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4 The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 The Galileo Affair and 'Life' as the true "Center of the Universe" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
Verse and music:
Psalm 139:7-8 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. Your Love Is Like A River - Third Day http://myktis.com/songs/your-love-is-like-a-river/
Dr. Hunter, though the main focus of your paper was to draw out the inconsistencies between the yeast findings and Darwinian theory, this comment you made in passing caught my eye,,,
'About fifty years later scientists began to doubt Newtonian physics not at long distances, but at short distances. The result was quantum mechanics and the understanding that Newtonian physics is incomplete. Quantum mechanics, which is important at the atomic level, was needed to complete the picture.'
I believe Dr. Hunter, correct me if I'm wrong, the first doubt about Newtonian physics, that it was not a complete description of gravity, had nothing at all to do with Quantum Mechanics, but was brought about with the observed anomalous perihelion (unexplained advance in orbit) of Mercury.
Mercury’s Perihelion - Chris Pollock - March 31, 2003 Introduction: In 1846, the French Astronomer Le Verriere, doing calculations based on Newton’s theory of gravitation, pin-pointed the position of a mass that was perturbing Uranus’ orbit. When fellow astronomers aimed their telescopes at his location, they recognized, for the first time, the eighth planet. Newton’s theory had reached its zenith. Shortly after, however, it became clear to Le Verriere that additional mass, nearer to the sun than Mercury, was needed to explain the strange advance of Mercury’s orbit. When no such mass was observed, astronomers began to doubt Newton’s theory. Then, along came Albert Einstein, whose theory nearly perfectly explained Mercury’s erstwhile mysterious motion. This essay is a history of Newton’s theory of gravity, the enigma of Mercury, and Einstein’s convincing solution,, http://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory” - 1915 http://www.gsjournal.net/old/eeuro/vankov.pdf
And although I believe Einstein was delighted to see that his General Relativity equation correctly calculated the orbit of Mercury, and he had great confidence that General Relativity (GR) was correct when he saw the agreement between his calculation from GR and the observation of mercury's orbit, it was not until the 1919 eclipse, when S.A. Eddington confirmed the bending of Starlight by the curvature of space-time around the sun, that Einstein gained overnight fame and became 'the rock star of physics', and that General Relativity finally completely displaced Newtonian physics as a 'complete' description of gravity.,,, Even a paper you referenced in 2011 Dr. Hunter shows how General Relativity supersedes Newtonian physics, and plays into the overriding privileged planet principle,,,
Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html
Whereas Dr. Hunter, contrary to your statement I highlighted (a statement that I'm sure you wrote in haste so as to focus on the yeast findings), the development of quantum physics, as far as I know, (again correct me if I'm wrong), had very little, if anything, to do with any anomalies in Newtonian physics at all, and that Quantum Mechanics followed its own completely independent trajectory in science, completely apart from Newtonian physics, or even completely apart with any anomalies to be found in General Relativity, to the point of superseding even General Relativity in its overall predictive power for reality as a whole (even at the macro level):
History of quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics
Dr. Hunter, the other part of your statement I took exception to, besides the inadvertent connection of Newtonian physics to quantum physics, is this,,
,,Quantum mechanics, which is important at the atomic level,,,
and why yes, quantum mechanics is very important for understanding actions at the atomic scale, (i.e. quantum tunneling, quantum leaps, and such), your statement inadvertently leaves off the fact that much work has been done to extend quantum mechanics far beyond the atomic scale to show that quantum mechanics also applies at the macro level as to how we ourselves, as observers, interact with the universe at large, and your statement inadvertently gives the false impression that quantum mechanics does not apply at the macro-scale of the universe: Notes to that effect:
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
One problem- there isn't any evolutionary theory. Joe

Leave a Reply