• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does evolution have a purpose?

Does evolution have a purpose

  • yes

    Votes: 17 32.1%
  • no

    Votes: 30 56.6%
  • not sure

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • Total voters
    53

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That depends entirely on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, so it's not a settled question.


Exactly. The probabilities are determined but the outcome of any individual measurement is random.

This clearly and specifically acknowledged that in genetic mutations, number generators, and Quantum Mechanics it is ONLY the outcomes of individual ents that are random, but within a limited range as predetermined by factors that limit the range of possible outcomes. It is chain of cause and effects that are not random. This also true of Quantum Mechanics.

As for mutations (which wasn't really my point), although there are patterns, even if they are not truly random, they are effectively random with respect to the overall process of evolution by natural selection, it's natural selection which isn't random.

As referenced the only thing random in Genetic mutations is the outcome of individual events within a defined range of possible outcomes.


[quote[ Generally speaking, no. However there are hardware devices that use quantum effects to produce truly random numbers. [/quote]

Actually no, it remains that only the individual event outcome that is random within a determined range by the design of the number generator.

None of the links in your post actually work.

Will work on the links, but the citations are accurate as cited.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This clearly and specifically acknowledged that in genetic mutations, number generators, and Quantum Mechanics it is ONLY the outcomes of individual ents that are random...

Which means that your claim that "The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic..." was false.
Actually no, it remains that only the individual event outcome that is random within a determined range by the design of the number generator.

If (for example) you fired individual photons at a half-silvered mirror, so that each had a 50% chance of being reflected or transmitted, you could generate an unlimited and completely random number (in binary, say 1 for transmitted and 0 for reflected).

There are other ways of tapping into quantum indeterminacy to generate truly random numbers. You can even buy hardware to do it or access truly random numbers on the web:-

Quantum random number generators: Why, how & where - Quside
Quantis QRNG Chip
ANU QRNG – Quantum random numbers
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Which means that your claim that "The nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic..." was false.

No, Despite individual outcomes of events being random, the outcomes of ALL chains of cause and effect events is predictable within a limited rangeof the outcomes of individual events. If the nature of our physical existence was not fundamentally deterministic science could not falsify theories and hypothesis based on the predictability in nature.


If (for example) you fired individual photons at a half-silvered mirror, so that each had a 50% chance of being reflected or transmitted, you could generate an unlimited and completely random number (in binary, say 1 for transmitted and 0 for reflected).

No, because the overall chain of cause and effects is predictable within a limited range of the outcomes of individual events,

There are other ways of tapping into quantum indeterminacy to generate truly random numbers. You can even buy hardware to do it or access truly random numbers on the web:-

Quantum random number generators: Why, how & where - Quside
Quantis QRNG Chip
ANU QRNG – Quantum random numbers

It still remains that the range of put comes of any number generator follow a predictable pattern based pn the design of the number generator.

Note the definitions of random that precludes the fact that any chain of cause and effects that follows a predictable pattern within a predictable range of outcomes can be classified as random.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
...ALL chains of cause and effect events is predictable within a limited rangeof the outcomes of individual events.
No, because the overall chain of cause and effects is predictable within a limited range of the outcomes of individual events,

What do you think this actually means? Individual events are random. There are statistical patterns, but that doesn't mean we have determinism.
It still remains that the range of put comes of any number generator follow a predictable pattern based pn the design of the number generator.

If it was predictable, it wouldn't be truly random. In the specific case I mentioned you can generate an unlimited number of completely random ones and zeros.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What do you think this actually means? Individual events are random. There are statistical patterns, but that doesn't mean we have determinism.

The predictable patterns in nature are the basis for fundamental determinism that is the basis of how science works. This does not translate to mechanistic Newtonian determinism


If it was predictable, it wouldn't be truly random. In the specific case I mentioned you can generate an unlimited number of completely random ones and zeros.

It is predictable that the only outcomes will be ones and zeros, and the overall pattern will likely follow a fractal pattern.

I will provide a reference concerning the problem of call aany number generators as random other than the outcome of the individual events.

Truly randomness would make the patterns unpredictable without a known cause unpredictable. The design of all number generators determine that they are not truly random.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The predictable patterns in nature are the basis for fundamental determinism that is the basis of how science works. This does not translate to mechanistic Newtonian determinism

Either the laws of physics are deterministic or they aren't. There isn't a third option.
It is predictable that the only outcomes will be ones and zeros...

Yes, that's how we've set it up. The fact that it produces truly random number of arbitrary length shows we have a source of true randomness.
...and the overall pattern will likely follow a fractal pattern.

What on earth do you think fractals have to do with it?
I will provide a reference concerning the problem of call aany number generators as random other than the outcome of the individual events.

If we can produce an unlimited amount of unpredictable individual events, then we have a truly random number.
Truly randomness would make the patterns unpredictable without a known cause unpredictable.

Such random numbers are unpredictable. This is the whole basis on which quantum cryptography (quantum key distribution) works.
The design of all number generators determine that they are not truly random.

As far as all the evidence we have at the moment goes, this is just false.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The predictable patterns in nature are the basis for fundamental determinism that is the basis of how science works. This does not translate to mechanistic Newtonian determinism




It is predictable that the only outcomes will be ones and zeros, and the overall pattern will likely follow a fractal pattern.

I will provide a reference concerning the problem of call aany number generators as random other than the outcome of the individual events.

Truly randomness would make the patterns unpredictable without a known cause unpredictable. The design of all number generators determine that they are not truly random.
See now, the problem here is that there is absolutely no scientific proof that chimpanzees, snakes, or birds evolve into anything other than what 'they' are.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
See now, the problem here is that there is absolutely no scientific proof that chimpanzees, snakes, or birds evolve into anything other than what 'they' are.

Since you seem totally unable to learn even the simplest of facts, like science doesn't do proof, it does evidence, you are clearly not interested in the truth, only burying head in the sand to cling to your blind faith, so what's the point in posting in these debates when all you're doing is making you and your faith look absurd?

There is endless evidence (for example) that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, and you've been given it many, many times. Just ignoring it, will not make it go away.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
See now, the problem here is that there is absolutely no scientific proof that chimpanzees, snakes, or birds evolve into anything other than what 'they' are.
Well, if they're still what they are, chimps, snakes, &c, then they haven't evolved, have they? -- at least not their personal populations.
But their great, great great * * * * * grand parents did, with variation in each offspring; each generation minutely changing as useful variants are more successful, and the less well adapted slowly fading out.

Eventually a population exists that their forbears wouldn't recognize.

Is there any "scientific proof" (what is it with you and your fixation on "proof?") that Latin evolved into French?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Either the laws of physics are deterministic or they aren't. There isn't a third option.


Yes, that's how we've set it up. The fact that it produces truly random number of arbitrary length shows we have a source of true randomness.


What on earth do you think fractals have to do with it?


If we can produce an unlimited amount of unpredictable individual events, then we have a truly random number.


Such random numbers are unpredictable. This is the whole basis on which quantum cryptography (quantum key distribution) works.


As far as all the evidence we have at the moment goes, this is just false.

Here is the reference from Physics Forum that discusses randomness in Quantum Mechanics: Random definition


Note; Even though throughout nature the individual events are random as to the timing of the event. The cause and effect of these events can be determined by the falsification of theories and hypothesis as predictable in a limited range of possible outcomes. Therefore the natural of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic and predictable.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So let's see. Anatomically you say humans as we know them now were around way before 20,000 years ago. Please direct me to a website that shows evidence of this assertion. Thanks.

20,000 years ago? That is easy. The fossil evidence of homo sapiens has determined that humans have been around for over 300,000 years in Africa 210,000 years in Europe.

This 210,000-Year-Old Skull May Be the Oldest Human Fossil Found in Europe | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

This 210,000-Year-Old Skull May Be the Oldest Human Fossil Found in Europe

A new study could shake up the accepted timeline of Homo Sapiens’ arrival on the continent—though not all experts are on board


In the late 1970s, two fossilized human crania were discovered in the Apidima cave in southern Greece. Researchers were somewhat befuddled by the remains; they were incomplete and distorted, for one, and had been found without any archaeological context, like stone tools. But because the skulls had been encased in a single block of stone, experts assumed they were the same age and of the same species—possibly Neanderthals.

Now, a bombshell study published in Nature posits that one of the crania, dubbed “Apidima 1,” in fact belonged to an early modern human that lived 210,000 years ago. The report has been met with skepticism by some experts, but if its conclusions are correct, Apidima 1 represents the oldest Homo sapiens fossil in Europe by some 160,000 years.

For the past 40-odd years, Apidima 1 and the other cranium, “Apidima 2,” have been held at the University of Athen’s Museum of Anthropology. Scientists there recently reached out to Katerina Harvati, director of paleoanthropology at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, to see if she would be interested in taking a fresh look at the skulls, reports Maya Wei-Haas of National Geographic.

Harvati and a team of colleagues analyzed the remains using cutting-edge techniques. First, they CT-scanned both fossils and generated 3D reconstructions in an attempt to get a better picture of what the skulls looked like. Though it had been badly damaged over the centuries, Apidima 2 is the more complete fossil; it includes the facial region, and the new models affirmed previous research indicating that the specimen belonged to a Neanderthal. Apidima 1 consists of just the back of the crania, but the team’s reconstructions and analyses revealed something surprising: the fossil’s features were consistent not with those of Neanderthals, but with those of modern humans.

Tellingly, the Apidima 1 fossil lacks a “chignon,” the distinctive bulge at the back of the skull that is characteristic of Neanderthals. The posterior of the skull is also rounded, which “is considered to be a uniquely modern human feature that evolved relatively late,” Harvati tells Ed Yong of the Atlantic. And when the team dated the fossils by analyzing the radioactive decay of trace uranium in the specimens, they got another shock. Apidima 2 was found to be around 170,000 years old, which is consistent with the age of other Neanderthal fossils in Europe. But Apidima 1 was dated to 210,000 years ago, making it by far the oldest Homo sapiens fossil found on the continent.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Here is the reference from Physics Forum that discusses randomness in Quantum Mechanics: Random definition

What do you expect me to take from another discussion forum? I've actually studied the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
Note; Even though throughout nature the individual events are random as to the timing of the event.

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.
The cause and effect of these events can be determined by the falsification of theories and hypothesis as predictable in a limited range of possible outcomes.

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

There are hypotheses and conjectures that would make QM deterministic, but they have not been tested and so have no evidence to support them.
Therefore the natural of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic and predictable.

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.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Evolutionary models make use of statistical assumptions; random. However, we live in a quantum universe. In a quantum universe only very specific states are possible such as the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. There are gaps between these allowable quantum states. This is the opposite of the basic assumptions of statistics which assumes anything is possible based on finite odds; life can form in any solvent. Quantum assumes states of probability of 1.0 and 0.0, while statistics assumes in the middle between; <1 but >0. They are not connected. Statical is not consistent with a quantum universe, yet this is how life is approached by the life sciences. It is obsolete.

If we use a quantum approach, states of life; species, would be quantized with gaps in the middle between states. We should not see missing links since they would be in the gaps. This lack of missing links is observed. It also means that since the 2nd law still applies and is causing entropy to increase, the quantum stepping of allowable species should racket forward to the next higher quantum state over time; quantum jump to higher complexity.

For example, humans suddenly appear with a gap between them and the apes. Civilization suddenly appears and natural humans disappear. The next state will be an update in the human brain's operating system; detach from the present state. Interestingly the bible has humans appearing as a quantum jump. Adam and Eve then quantum step from paradise to hardship. This is not statistical but is more consistent with a quantum model.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Evolutionary models make use of statistical assumptions; random. However, we live in a quantum universe. In a quantum universe only very specific states are possible such as the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. There are gaps between these allowable quantum states. This is the opposite of the basic assumptions of statistics which assumes anything is possible based on finite odds; life can form in any solvent. Quantum assumes states of probability of 1.0 and 0.0, while statistics assumes in the middle between; <1 but >0. They are not connected. Statical is not consistent with a quantum universe, yet this is how life is approached by the life sciences. It is obsolete.

If we use a quantum approach, states of life; species, would be quantized with gaps in the middle between states. We should not see missing links since they would be in the gaps. This lack of missing links is observed. It also means that since the 2nd law still applies and is causing entropy to increase, the quantum stepping of allowable species should racket forward to the next higher quantum state over time; quantum jump to higher complexity.

For example, humans suddenly appear with a gap between them and the apes. Civilization suddenly appears and natural humans disappear. The next state will be an update in the human brain's operating system; detach from the present state. Interestingly the bible has humans appearing as a quantum jump. Adam and Eve then quantum step from paradise to hardship. This is not statistical but is more consistent with a quantum model.

Do your homework humans DID NOT suddenly appear with a gap between them and apes (primates not apes).
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Evolutionary models make use of statistical assumptions; random. However, we live in a quantum universe. In a quantum universe only very specific states are possible such as the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. There are gaps between these allowable quantum states. This is the opposite of the basic assumptions of statistics which assumes anything is possible based on finite odds; life can form in any solvent. Quantum assumes states of probability of 1.0 and 0.0, while statistics assumes in the middle between; <1 but >0. They are not connected. Statical is not consistent with a quantum universe, yet this is how life is approached by the life sciences. It is obsolete.
Quantum's not needed to understand the simple mechanisms of evolution.
If we use a quantum approach, states of life; species, would be quantized with gaps in the middle between states. We should not see missing links since they would be in the gaps. This lack of missing links is observed. It also means that since the 2nd law still applies and is causing entropy to increase, the quantum stepping of allowable species should racket forward to the next higher quantum state over time; quantum jump to higher complexity.
Again, not applicable -- and confusing. :confused:
For example, humans suddenly appear with a gap between them and the apes.
Is this a hypothetical? -- cause no such thing ever happened.
Civilization suddenly appears and natural humans disappear.
Whole lot of sudden goin' on, here....
The next state will be an update in the human brain's operating system; detach from the present state. Interestingly the bible has humans appearing as a quantum jump.
And what would cause such an 'update'? Hasn't the intelligence we have now gotten us in enough trouble?
Adam and Eve then quantum step from paradise to hardship. This is not statistical but is more consistent with a quantum model.
Well, you've got me convinced. I'm off to look for a bigger motorcycle helmet.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
See now, the problem here is that there is absolutely no scientific proof that chimpanzees, snakes, or birds evolve into anything other than what 'they' are.

But there is very strong scientific evidence that chimpanzees, snakes and birds evolved from something other than what they are now.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, Despite individual outcomes of events being random, the outcomes of ALL chains of cause and effect events is predictable within a limited rangeof the outcomes of individual events. If the nature of our physical existence was not fundamentally deterministic science could not falsify theories and hypothesis based on the predictability in nature.




No, because the overall chain of cause and effects is predictable within a limited range of the outcomes of individual events,



It still remains that the range of put comes of any number generator follow a predictable pattern based pn the design of the number generator.

Note the definitions of random that precludes the fact that any chain of cause and effects that follows a predictable pattern within a predictable range of outcomes can be classified as random.
It is reasonably predictable that viruses mutate. It is not reasonable to think they mutate to anything but a virus.
20,000 years ago? That is easy. The fossil evidence of homo sapiens has determined that humans have been around for over 300,000 years in Africa 210,000 years in Europe.

This 210,000-Year-Old Skull May Be the Oldest Human Fossil Found in Europe | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

This 210,000-Year-Old Skull May Be the Oldest Human Fossil Found in Europe

A new study could shake up the accepted timeline of Homo Sapiens’ arrival on the continent—though not all experts are on board


In the late 1970s, two fossilized human crania were discovered in the Apidima cave in southern Greece. Researchers were somewhat befuddled by the remains; they were incomplete and distorted, for one, and had been found without any archaeological context, like stone tools. But because the skulls had been encased in a single block of stone, experts assumed they were the same age and of the same species—possibly Neanderthals.

Now, a bombshell study published in Nature posits that one of the crania, dubbed “Apidima 1,” in fact belonged to an early modern human that lived 210,000 years ago. The report has been met with skepticism by some experts, but if its conclusions are correct, Apidima 1 represents the oldest Homo sapiens fossil in Europe by some 160,000 years.

For the past 40-odd years, Apidima 1 and the other cranium, “Apidima 2,” have been held at the University of Athen’s Museum of Anthropology. Scientists there recently reached out to Katerina Harvati, director of paleoanthropology at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, to see if she would be interested in taking a fresh look at the skulls, reports Maya Wei-Haas of National Geographic.

Harvati and a team of colleagues analyzed the remains using cutting-edge techniques. First, they CT-scanned both fossils and generated 3D reconstructions in an attempt to get a better picture of what the skulls looked like. Though it had been badly damaged over the centuries, Apidima 2 is the more complete fossil; it includes the facial region, and the new models affirmed previous research indicating that the specimen belonged to a Neanderthal. Apidima 1 consists of just the back of the crania, but the team’s reconstructions and analyses revealed something surprising: the fossil’s features were consistent not with those of Neanderthals, but with those of modern humans.

Tellingly, the Apidima 1 fossil lacks a “chignon,” the distinctive bulge at the back of the skull that is characteristic of Neanderthals. The posterior of the skull is also rounded, which “is considered to be a uniquely modern human feature that evolved relatively late,” Harvati tells Ed Yong of the Atlantic. And when the team dated the fossils by analyzing the radioactive decay of trace uranium in the specimens, they got another shock. Apidima 2 was found to be around 170,000 years old, which is consistent with the age of other Neanderthal fossils in Europe. But Apidima 1 was dated to 210,000 years ago, making it by far the oldest Homo sapiens fossil found on the continent.
I can't say what is or is not considered by some scientists as what may be thought of as human by fossil finds.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
But there is very strong scientific evidence that chimpanzees, snakes and birds evolved from something other than what they are now.
You may say strong evidence. Nevertheless however one looks at it, it is not proof.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, if they're still what they are, chimps, snakes, &c, then they haven't evolved, have they? -- at least not their personal populations.
But their great, great great * * * * * grand parents did, with variation in each offspring; each generation minutely changing as useful variants are more successful, and the less well adapted slowly fading out.

Eventually a population exists that their forbears wouldn't recognize.

Is there any "scientific proof" (what is it with you and your fixation on "proof?") that Latin evolved into French?
I hope you're not likening Latin moving into French as evolution similar to Darwin's postulation. Latin evolving into French is similar but not exactly like to a recipe for bread evolving into cookies. It is not "natural selection." Similarly, I was born in a particular region with a distinct accent. Experts can detect sometimes where a person was born and raised based on their accent. In addition, some regions call soda 'pop,' not soda. 'Pop' is like a different sound to my ears...so I hope you get the point. If someone says to me, "Would you like a refill for your pop?" I think, well she isn't from where I was born and raised. In other words, that ain't evolution of the Darwinian kind.
 
Top