Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

You did not answer my question, but considering that you have not said that my portrayal of your argument is wrong I will assume that you agree with it unless you say otherwise.

I actually turned 20 two days ago but that is irrelevant. Even if I were 5 that would not automatically make me wrong. I don't know if you are trying to use this as part of your argument but I hope for your sake that you are not because it would be an ad hominem fallacy.

I will admit that my understanding of quantum mechanics is relatively superficial because I don't know how to actually solve for the Schrodinger equations myself but I have done enough research on the topic that I know a lot about the more basic and intermediate stuff such as the various interpretations of the theory and how it conflicts with relativity. Again though, could you please address my argument and not me? A good argument stands on it's own merit and not the merit of the person making it.

You have a made a false dichotomy here. Why must I either pick an interpretation of quantum mechanics or think that they are all bunk? Why can't I consider them all equally possible and admit that I have no way to tell which is correct (which I do by the way)? Claiming that something is wrong does not require claiming that the exact opposite thing is right. My problem is that you claim to know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. I have two main problems with your argument:

1: We currently can't know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct.
2: No matter which one it is, it has no effect on evolution or anything else we can currently empirically measure.

Even if we assume that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, that only predicts that some effects on the quantum scale don't have causes yet every cause has an effect according to information theory. On the scale of humans and animals quantum randomness averages out and things act in a very Newtonian way and obey causality.

This is getting beyond my knowledge, however, what I believe what's happening is intersecting energy waves, doing whatever, with intersecting probabilities, and the finality of one of these probability outcomes becoming our reality.

First, you need to know what quantum superposition is.

The intersecting energy waves with their different actions, and intersections, frequencies, amplitudes ,probabilities are called "quantum superposition". This means the system is kept intact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

While the finality to our reality is called "the "wave function collapse". For example, the waves in the pic could be combined into one wave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

In 2013, researchers were able to keep a molecule in quantum superposition, thus, maintaining all the MANY different energy waves, all doing whatever, and interacting with each other ... with all the potential probability outcomes ... without "wave function collapse".
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 2c39db8e7b

This is the promise of quantum computing. That we can access , and utilize this superposition state without "collapsing". That's how Qubits can be true and false at the same time, because in the superposition state, all probabilities are potentials to "collapse" to our reality. The potential for something to be true, as well as the potential for something to be false.

That's where things "materialize out of thin air" as you say. Specifically, energy.

It "collapses" to a definite probability outcome for the system.

That numbered list makes no sense. Those aren't steps in reasoning. And If someone wants to argue about Harry Potter, but does not have the knowledge to do so, you can show them the book and demonstrate your correctness. The stories may be fictional, but the books are things that exist in reality.


And if you "claim the truth that all knowledge in unknowable", my only answer is "you don't know that." Sitting in a dark cave, covering your ears and reciting the Socratic Paradox over and over again isn't going to get anyone anywhere. Tell me, if you were to break your leg, to whom would you go for aid, and by what metric would you make that decision?





I think your problem is that you're making a lot of incoherent claims, interspersed with some talk about quantum physics/mechanics, and then proceed to ignore all questions or respond incoherently. See my next point.




See this? This is me asking you for an explanation, and you responding nonsensically.




No, my first post was a very straightforward and very important question that you decided that you didn't have to answer, so for the benefit of others I provided an answer despite your dodging.




This is not me attacking you on a personal level. This is me attacking your reasoning. Which is broken beyond all reason. Attacking someone on a personal level would be, for instance, implying that someones age would be a point against them in a discussion. Who was it that did that just now?





Read this line. Read it about a hundred times over. Then get back to me and see if you understand what's wrong with it.





The only one who has claimed to know an absolute truth is you. And that truth, apparently, invalidates everything except whatever you think is true for the moment.

This is all nonsense.

Your participation in this forum is not to contribute, not to add to the discussion, rather, it's to make child-like arguments about me on a personal level.

Here's what you just wrote ....

"whatever you think .... is true for the moment" ... What the $&$^#* are you taking about? .. ..If I said that then you would of already nitpicked that quote out and cited it, because that's your game. I said numerous times already that I am simply presenting a viewpoint, and other people may not be wrong. If you had even the slightest knowledge about quantum models, which i cited often here, then you would know that, but your knowledge on this topic is so poor, you're so in the dark, that this awareness passes you by.

"Read it about a hundred times over. Then get back to me and see if you understand what's wrong with it".
I get the condescension, however, this is not adult-speak. Again, this is someone with no understanding trying to mask that. We get it. You're trying to be clever, and hide that you don't know much about this topic. Understood.

"This is me attacking your reasoning. Which is broken beyond all reason".
This is a funny insult. You state that my "reasoning is broken beyond all reason". What $&$^#* does that even mean? Maybe that's a good thing.

"my first post was a very straightforward and very important question that you decided that you didn't have to answer",
I was accused of "hijacking" this thread, precisely because I kept answering questions about my opinions. I remember you asked, "Do I believe in logic?" Which of course, no, that's what physics teaches you -- to have an open mind about possibilities. It's a trap question, because you're intentions are to later use it to attack my arguments based on my personal experiences. So, I didn't answer it. I saw through your game.

"See this? This is me asking you for an explanation, and you responding nonsensically".
Just as I knew you didn't much about quantum, I could see your game. Your trying to find some avenue to address me personally. So, I did that intentionally.

"I think your problem is that you're making a lot of incoherent claims",
Hahaha ... that's the nature of you not knowing much about this topic.

"And if you "claim the truth that all knowledge in unknowable", my only answer is "you don't know that."
Pretending to be some master logician ? If you were, then you would admit that you don't know what I know. If this interests you, I suggest you take some time to read about philosophical realism, and anti-realism.

"If someone wants to argue about Harry Potter, but does not have the knowledge to do so, you can show them the book and demonstrate your correctness".
Again, this is you not understanding, then turning around and blaming me, because you don't have this education. I don't want to provide classes on this site. Also, this is not about "correctness". Quantum has "interpretations", not right or wrong.

Oh, this is absolute gold...

It is. But enough about what you wrote, let's talk about me and my posts.




If you would have written that, I'm not sure I would have "nitpicked" it, because I have this habit where I'm at least making a concerted effort to be consistent in my reasoning. And no, when you write things like "scientists are evil money-whoring con-men" and then go on to say things like "well, Quantum Biologists have these hypotheses, thus everything else is wrong" and "I took a Youtube course by a Yale professor, so I know what I'm talking about" you are not merely presenting alternative ideas, you are being blatantly inconsistent. The same is true when you advance the ABSOLUTE TRUTH that knowledge is unknowable, and then proceed to try and assert that you or anyone else have superior knowledge to anyone challenging the ideas you put forward. Y'know, that thing you're doing repeatedly right now in this post I'm responding to.




I indulge in a bit of condescension as a self-indulgent spice when dealing with people like you. And yes, I cleverly disguised my lacking knowledge of Quantum Mechanics by freely admitting that I'm not terribly well-versed in Quantum Mechanics, but not entirely lost in scientific topics in general. And you literally said "There is no right or wrong, but you're wrong!".




IT.IS.NOT.AN.INSULT.

"you are bad" is an insult. "Your reasoning is bad" is not an insult.

You, in a lot more words, literally said: "People were mean to me when I was a child. Therefore Science is wrong". You are determined to get me in some sort of Ad Hominem trap, all the while being the only one actually indulging in Ad Hominems. I have a thick skin, but if you can't reign in your behaviour, I'm going to report you on principle.




How paranoid are you, exactly? "Saw through my game"? "Trap question"? My clever game of trying to determine exactly how fundamentally your reasoning and mine clash? Well, bully to you, I guess...




Do you imagine me wearing a power suit and sipping expensive whisky in my swivel chair? Perhaps petting a white persian cat on my lap? Should I don my opera cape and grow a mustache, so I can twirl it? Shake my fist at you and shout "Curses, foiled again!"?

No. What possible motivation would I have for attacking you personally? None. I only know you through your deranged positions. You're basically a creationist. An anti-vaxxer. A flat-earther. A geocentrist. You're free to be all of those and more, but I'm going to keep highlighting how deranged your ideas are, regardless of how much you do or do not know about Quantum Mechanics. That's irrelevant to me; but the idea of disregarding and dismissing science is dangerous. Be skeptical? Yes. Be open-minded? Absolutely. But there is such a thing as being so open-minded that your brain falls out. And you seem to be well past that point.




You might be an absolute godess of Quantum Physics/Mechanics for all I know or care. Maybe you have us all well and truly spanked on that topic. I can't tell, and frankly, I don't care. But, since you're also advancing the sort of ideas that lead to people dying needlessly from things like not listening to doctors or scientists, all the while claiming superior knowledge AND denying the existence of such a thing as superior knowledge. "The sleep of reason produces monsters" wrote Goya. Well, think of me as a pro-bono monster hunter.




Do you deny the validity of the response under your own reasoning?

How could I possibly know what you know? The only one making claims to know what others know is you. But the reverse is just as true; you don't know what I know or don't know. But from what you've asserted that you know: knowledge is unknowable, but a con-man taught you all about Quantum Physics, and therefore your knowledge is superior to that of others. That about sum it up?




No, this is actually you not understanding, and also you using terrible analogies. Natural science is a lot less like literary criticism (where a broad range of weird interpretation may have some degree of validity) and a lot more like,
say, model boat building. You look at previously built boats and build on their ideas, or try entirely new ones. But if there's a hole in your boat, you better find a solid way to fix it or it'll sink (analogous to a theory being disproven).

In saying that quantum has "interpretations, not right or wrong", you're saying that the quantum sciences are soft sciences and don't belong in STEM. And I don't think that's what you're trying to say.

I'm not denying that the quantum sciences are both very weird and very promising. But as of yet, I'd be very, very careful to draw any conclusions about reality based on them; these sciences are centuries younger than their non-quantum relatives, and a good bit away from having a solid consensus on which models function best. If your model defies logic, I posit it's the model that's in need of alteration, not logic that needs be thrown out the window. And as has been pointed out, Quantum Biology is something like a decade old, so excuse me if I'm not prepared to throw Darwinian Evolution and Mendelian Genetics out the window quite yet.

I think evolution is a lie, I don't think we were all once chimps. That is BS.

^it's a good thing nobody is claiming we were "all once chimps", then.

The theory is, we humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor, not that humans are descended from chimps.

I'm just going to leave this here since there is so much discussion about who is using an ad hominem on whom.

We were never chimps. We only share a common ancestor with them. Opponents of evolution, creationists and fundamentalists specifically, distort the theory and create all sorts of propaganda about it. They don't even keep up with paleontology and their views of dinosaurs are frozen in the early to mid 1900's; to them, dinosaurs were lumbering and stupid mounds of flesh despite how scientific data from 1964 and onward has shown many of them were active and intelligent creatures. The fact that creationists hardly ever dig up and study fossils up close should tell you that their claims aren't reliable. Someone like Robert T. Bakker, who is also a Christian, has actually dug up and studied fossils up close so I'll take his word over hacks like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.

Well...

Humans did not always exist for all eternity. That much seems beyond dispute.

Humans must have come from something that was not human.

The Bible itself says that God fashioned Adam and Eve from piles of mud.

Transformed chimps (or transformed chimp-like primates) is less of a stretch than transformed mud.

And not only that -the two notions of what we were before we were human are not even opposed ideas. They both could be true. We might have been mud first, and then went through a chimp-like phase before becoming human.

And indeed that does seem to be the case. Life originated on Earth four and some billion years ago in primoridial ooze (you could call it "mud"), became prokaryote microbes (bacteria), later evolved into eukaryote microbes (like paramecia), then into multicellular creatures, and so on, and then after the billions of years we became anthropoid apes who made the final small step to becoming human. And Genisis just omits the intermediate steps (probably because that part would have been lost on the Bronze Age audience) and went straight from the mud to humans.

Very good argument, sir! I shall have to make use of it!

We're not descended from chimps, we're descended from apes.

And yes, the common ancestor between humans and modern apes was also a type of ape.

I find it funny that your profile picture is a cat because they make for a great argument in favor of evolution. Nobody in their right mind would believe that domestic cats and lions aren't related, they evolved to become small and cute because they became pets and their survival started to depend on them being liked by humans which meant being cute. Now domestic cats are more genetically different from lions then humans are from chimps. I challenge you to explain that without evolution.

If creationists are right, why is there no Precambrian rabbit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit