intelligent design (evolution)

[osba]

Hey guys, something that i read in a book has been on my mind for the past week and i think its really intresting.. i'll share it here as it is easier to explain on the computer than on paper.
The general idea is that evolution is affected by the "randomness" of the quantum world.
A study that has been reenacted by many research facilities has proven that there is a certain "intelligence" behind evolution.. for a brief explanation open the spoiler:

Spoiler

they had several colonies of Ecoli bacteria that was lactose intolerant and gave them lactose as their only food source.. the monitored ones all died after the second generation died out.. the un-monitored ones however survived.. it is known that the quantum world can change merely on being observed (and no, we do not know why this works yet), this was also shown in a different experiment on the "spray pattern" a laser makes when being observed from when it is not being observed.

since the results change by whether they are being observed or not, the more favored outcome will be selected by the genes, showing another connection to this mysterious quantum world and basically proving (or at least explaining the possibillity that-) we (life) pick the most desirable path in evolution ourselves.. what do you guys think? pretty interesting huh?

 

[Made in Heaven]

So you're saying we can control our genetic codes, yes?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

The entire support of this study falls upon whether or not sight actually influences growth or waning of non-intelligent life. The Observer Effect only affects organisms with the intelligence to understand their surroundings and displays behavior.

But this effect on being observed has nothing to do with Biology, more on the field of Physics (since you were kind enough to point out another study on a larger scale than Biology). Physicists and Mathematicians are studying this phenomenon right now! Figure out why this is and then collect your Nobel Prize

So you're saying we can control our genetic codes, yes?

No, generational growth does not mean that organism can control its own genetic code. The consequences would be catastrophic if we could do that individually.

 

[osba]

So you're saying we can control our genetic codes, yes?

not can.. according to this study (and if we follow this thesis) we already are ^.^ who knows, maybe later we can accelerate it?

No, generational growth does not mean that organism can control its own genetic code. The consequences would be catastrophic if we could do that individually.

im not saying it is controling it.. if the quantum world both as a and b happening at the same time, with a being more favorable for said entity, a will happen.. (this can only happen at quantum level, but we could see it creating a domino effect)

 

[Made in Heaven]

No, generational growth does not mean that organism can control its own genetic code. The consequences would be catastrophic if we could do that individually.

So what is it?

 

[The Sach]

The entire support of this study falls upon whether or not sight actually influences growth or waning of non-intelligent life. The Observer Effect only affects organisms with the intelligence to understand their surroundings and displays behavior.

But this effect on being observed has nothing to do with Biology, more on the field of Physics (since you were kind enough to point out another study on a larger scale than Biology). Physicists and Mathematicians are studying this phenomenon right now! Figure out why this is and then collect your Nobel Prize

^I agree with this^

 

[FreakensteinAG]

So what is it?

You'd never guess: Natural Selection! Oh my goodness

You already are given the fact that bacteria can multiply rapidly and with great number. We are also given that the bacteria who utterly cannot digest this lactose die.

The variable is the bacteria who, on the other side of the bell curve, can only take in a little bit of lactose before suffering.

These guys are the ones who survive a little bit longer than the other bacteria, thus have the privilege of multiplying more of their genealogy.

This process continues. Now, the ones who can digest a little bit more lactose than the others survive longer, thus multiply more.

And it continues, and it continues, and it continues, for hundreds more generations. At the finish line, we are left with a species of E.Coli that can digest lactose and survive.

We can view this process in real time, as the OP has graciously offered us.

 

[osba]

So what is it?

im not saying it is controling it.. if the quantum world both as a and b happening at the same time, with a being more favorable for said entity, a will happen.. (this can only happen at quantum level, but we could see it creating a domino effect)

You'd never guess: Natural Selection! Oh my goodness

You already are given the fact that bacteria can multiply rapidly and with great number. We are also given that the bacteria who utterly cannot digest this lactose die.

The variable is the bacteria who, on the other side of the bell curve, can only take in a little bit of lactose before suffering.

These guys are the ones who survive a little bit longer than the other bacteria, thus have the privilege of multiplying more of their genealogy.

This process continues. Now, the ones who can digest a little bit more lactose than the others survive longer, thus multiply more.

And it continues, and it continues, and it continues, for hundreds more generations. At the finish line, we are left with a species of E.Coli that can digest lactose and survive.

We can view this process in real time, as the OP has graciously offered us.

yet the observed all die, but the unobserved thrive? natural selection favors the better being, but evolution happens too fast for natural selection to be the only factor; the Ecoli test proves this.

 

[Made in Heaven]

You'd never guess: Natural Selection! Oh my goodness

You already are given the fact that bacteria can multiply rapidly and with great number. We are also given that the bacteria who utterly cannot digest this lactose die.

The variable is the bacteria who, on the other side of the bell curve, can only take in a little bit of lactose before suffering.

These guys are the ones who survive a little bit longer than the other bacteria, thus have the privilege of multiplying more of their genealogy.

This process continues. Now, the ones who can digest a little bit more lactose than the others survive longer, thus multiply more.

And it continues, and it continues, and it continues, for hundreds more generations. At the finish line, we are left with a species of E.Coli that can digest lactose and survive.

We can view this process in real time, as the OP has graciously offered us.

You make it sound like I'm against "natural selection" I'm not, just the idea of macroevolution [Though I do believe in microevolution]

 

[FreakensteinAG]

You make it sound like I'm against "natural selection" I'm not, just the idea of macroevolution [Though I do believe in microevolution]

Macroevolution applies the exact same Biological laws as Microevolution, just on a grander scale and with more complexity, ergo no reason to not believe in the former

Edit: I have to go to my Calc IV class in 45 minutes, I'll stay and teach until then.

 

[Snape Uchiha]

I think you mentioned this but this is similar to how photons which normally act as waves, act as particles when being observed.

 

[osba]

perhaps it is so that the "event picking" that might happen, is affected by radiation, resulting in cancer because the cells (or genes) degenerate?

I think you mentioned this but this is similar to how photons which normally act as waves, act as particles when being observed.

yes, this is what happens with the laser experiment

 

[FreakensteinAG]

perhaps it is the "event picking" that might happen, is affected by radiation, resulting in cancer because the cells (or genes) degenerate?

yes, this is what happens with the laser experiment

Well, the thing with cancer itself is that its one cell which horribly multiplies. But these cells themselves do not function, and this study would have noted that. The thing that I'm getting at is cancer does not happen within a cell, rather a cell causes cancer and/or turns cancerous, like a Jedi turning to the Dark Side. :O

 

[osba]

Well, the thing with cancer itself is that its one cell which horribly multiplies. But these cells themselves do not function, and this study would have noted that. The thing that I'm getting at is cancer does not happen within a cell, rather a cell causes cancer and/or turns cancerous, like a Jedi turning to the Dark Side. :O

i will believe you on your word, but i am not convinced
but then again.. i know only the basics of cancer and am not intrested enough to delve deeper into that

this also opens up the possibility that, if we are capable of making something that can radiate pure quantum energy (or at least link the 2 "worlds" together) with no radiation interfering, the DNA (or life) might just make the perfect choices every time (this would not cure cancer as both normal and cancerous cells would evolve)
it was also shown that your DNA is not static trough life.. as long as you have the gen it can be turned on if it would favor you.
this would make us capable of creating perfect humans, widening the gap between the poor and the rich even further.
that is if they are not perfectly linked together already though.

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

You'd never guess: Natural Selection! Oh my goodness

You already are given the fact that bacteria can multiply rapidly and with great number. We are also given that the bacteria who utterly cannot digest this lactose die.

The variable is the bacteria who, on the other side of the bell curve, can only take in a little bit of lactose before suffering.

These guys are the ones who survive a little bit longer than the other bacteria, thus have the privilege of multiplying more of their genealogy.

This process continues. Now, the ones who can digest a little bit more lactose than the others survive longer, thus multiply more.

And it continues, and it continues, and it continues, for hundreds more generations. At the finish line, we are left with a species of E.Coli that can digest lactose and survive.

We can view this process in real time, as the OP has graciously offered us.

So the bacteria becomes lactose-intolerant, but what's it's fitness cost? What does it lose to become tolerant to lactose?

Also, how come you never responded to my VM?

 

[ROSH2]

You'd never guess: Natural Selection! Oh my goodness

You already are given the fact that bacteria can multiply rapidly and with great number. We are also given that the bacteria who utterly cannot digest this lactose die.

The variable is the bacteria who, on the other side of the bell curve, can only take in a little bit of lactose before suffering.

These guys are the ones who survive a little bit longer than the other bacteria, thus have the privilege of multiplying more of their genealogy.

This process continues. Now, the ones who can digest a little bit more lactose than the others survive longer, thus multiply more.

And it continues, and it continues, and it continues, for hundreds more generations. At the finish line, we are left with a species of E.Coli that can digest lactose and survive.

We can view this process in real time, as the OP has graciously offered us.

you are trying to shoving your assumptions on others

 

[EnDash]

there is a great video explaining simply the "laser experiment" called the double slit experiment. and the dual wave particle nature of electrons:

You must be registered for see links

[video=youtube;wsq7qXr9Hl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsq7qXr9Hl0[/video]

and i agree with the OP, evolution does go in an interestingly intelligent way, every new infant receives 90% his parents DNA and 10% random DNA, and that random DNA seems to change by that generation's needs which we don't understand why. but because quantum randomness is not explained we can't explain the evolution's intelligent randomness using quantum mechanics.

 

[KillerbYo]

Well, the thing with cancer itself is that its one cell which horribly multiplies. But these cells themselves do not function, and this study would have noted that. The thing that I'm getting at is cancer does not happen within a cell, rather a cell causes cancer and/or turns cancerous, like a Jedi turning to the Dark Side. :O

Your being too subjective, there are other studies and logical reasonings indicating the same thing. You just dont get it.

 

[osba]

Your being too subjective, there are other studies and logical reasonings indicating the same thing. You just dont get it.

could you list (some of) them?

 

[hokutoshinken]

Hey guys, something that i read in a book has been on my mind for the past week and i think its really intresting.. i'll share it here as it is easier to explain on the computer than on paper.
The general idea is that evolution is affected by the "randomness" of the quantum world.
A study that has been reenacted by many research facilities has proven that there is a certain "intelligence" behind evolution..for a brief explanation open the spoiler:

That is nothing more than a tacit, or not so tacit, admission that evolution by blind chance cannot be true. Because you and others recognize that complex living things could not possibly have arisen by means of undirected, random events, you have to come up with some other excuse to avoid the Intelligent Design issue. So you invent things like the Anthropic Principle to cover over the fact that you cannot reconcile the actual observed fact of complexity with random, undirected mechanistic processes.

they had several colonies of Ecoli bacteria that was lactose intolerant and gave them lactose as their only food source.. the monitored ones all died after the second generation died out.. the un-monitored ones however survived..

Sir, in my lifetime I would imagine the number of generations of E. coli that have lived and died all over the world is so astronomical as to numb the mind. Yet in all that time I am unaware of any E. coli bacterium that became anything but an E. coli bacterium. And I have to remind you that you are starting with ALREADY PRESENT biological mechanisms for the metabolism of lactose, or else the genetic material that could mutate and allow for that digestion. Nobody is arguing that genes do not mutate and even develop new (or rather altered) functions. I'm arguing that the materials and mechanisms that would allow for that mutation were ALREADY PRESENT, and not something that just appeared out of nowhere as something totally new. You cannot deny that fact. It's like the bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon. The genetic material that allowed for that mutation was ALREADY present within the bacteria. And yet, the bacteria were still bacteria. They did not start changing into human beings. If that were happening we certainly should have enough evidence to witness it in process right now.

Further, this is just one more pathetic example of how evolutionists strive to find the most minute so-called "proof" of evolution, like always appealing to antibiotic resistance, which as I'm sure you well know, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution from nothing to human beings. How does that ability or inability to metabolize lactose demonstrate that an E. coli turned into J [you]? That is what I would like to know.

it is known that the quantum world can change merely on being observed (and no, we do not know why this works yet), this was also shown in a different experiment on the "spray pattern" a laser makes when being observed from when it is not being observed.

Yes, I understand that fact. What I don't understand is how it demonstrates that evolution has "intelligence."

since the results change by whether they are being observed or not, the more favored outcome will be selected by the genes, showing another connection to this mysterious quantum world and basically proving (or at least explaining the possibillity that-) we (life) pick the most desirable path in evolution ourselves.. what do you guys think? pretty interesting huh?

I believe what is happening here is not that a favored outcome is being selected by genes, but rather that it is being selected by YOU, the observer. You are seeing pretty much what you wish to see in the "outome." And further, while the genes are "selecting the favored outcome" there should also be myriad FAILED outcomes that we should be able to observe (without changing anything - just plain observation of the facts) and the fossil record shows no such thing. That is, unless the genes ALWAYS "selected" the most "favored outcome," in which case I think any honest person would have to exclaim, "That is a miracle!" And miracles are not allowed in "real science," correct?