no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

[GostHacked]

25 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Uhh.....no thanks.

You're having great difficulty about the evidence supporting God existence, and you're on to another supernatural? 

See your dilemma yet?

[betsy]

Since the poster who boldly gave Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle have not actually given any argument about it - let me just give this to those who are curious.

 

 

Quote

 

Does Quantum Uncertainty Undermine the Cosmological Argument?

 

The concept of causality is fundamental to our understanding of modern science. It stems from the philosophical idea that any effect must have a cause. As far as we can tell, this is a universally observed and accepted principle of physics. This is the basis for one of the classic arguments for the existence of God, the Kalam Argument, which William Lane Craig states as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The argument here is for ultimate existence, not simply chains of effects. Something never comes from a true nothingness. Even quantum mechanical fluctuations occur in realm of some space-time reality, which is not “no” thing. There are physical laws that have a real existence and must have come from somewhere. They didn’t write themselves! The burden of proof lies with someone that claims otherwise, since it is contrary to both logic and observation.

 

One final consideration might be appropriate. Virtual particle pairs have been shown to be real in laboratory measurements. These particles arise from the vacuum state of space. It has been suggested that the universe and/or the Big Bang creation event was caused by such a fluctuation. However, and this is a big “BUT”, empty space (vacuum) was not preexistent to this event – it was created then as well! Before, there was no space to fluctuate in. (Even a hypotheical multiverse would require the pre-existence of some laws or "space", so the causality problem would simply be pushed back further, but not eliminated.) Further, these particles only exist for brief periods of time (inversely proportional to the amount of energy/mass of the particles), as allowed by the HUP, and only if they are not actually measured or observed. Also these particles occur as matter/anti-matter pairs in equal amounts, which would promptly annihilate each other. Finally, extrapolating this effect to a scale that would encompass the entire mass/energy balance of the universe is problematic, and most likely, unrealistic. Even though the universe was small then, the number of particles is very large, so statistical effects should predominate quantum ones.

So even in a quantum mechanical universe, the Kalam argument is still valid. For further reading on this subject, I found some articles that might be of interest:

 

https://apologia.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/24/5522734-does-quantum-uncertainty-undermine-the-cosmological-argument

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, then, I think it is clear that Smith has failed to carry the second prong of his argument, namely, that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. In his attempt to show that there is no good reason to accept the theistic hypothesis, he misconstrued the causal proposition at issue, appealed to false analogies of ex nihilo creation, contradicted himself in holding the singularity to be the source of the universe, failed to show why the origin of the universe ex nihilo is reasonable on models adjusted or unadjusted for quantum effects, and, most importantly, trivialized his whole argument through the reduction of causation to predictability in principle, thus making his conclusion an actual entailment of theism. Nor has he been any more successful in proving that the theistic hypothesis is unreasonable in light of the evidence. For he ignores the important epistemological questions concerning the circumstances under which it would be rational to accept divine creatio ex nihilo; he has failed to show that vacuum fluctuation models are or are likely to become plausible, empirical explanations of the universe's origin; on the contrary, such models are probably best regarded as naturalistic metaphysical alternatives to the theistic hypothesis, but as such are fraught with conceptual difficulties; and, most importantly, such models, on pain of ontological absurdity, do not in fact support Smith's (ii), so that they do not render unreasonable the hypothesis that God created the universe, including whatever wider spatio-temporal realms of reality might be imagined to exist.

 

 

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-caused-beginning-of-the-universe-a-response-to-quentin-smith#ixzz4etMrjJ5D

[eyeball]

Quote

such models are probably best regarded as naturalistic metaphysical alternatives to the theistic hypothesis, but as such are fraught with conceptual difficulties; and, most importantly, such models, on pain of ontological absurdity, do not in fact support Smith's (ii), so that they do not render unreasonable the hypothesis that God created the universe, including whatever wider spatio-temporal realms of reality might be imagined to exist.

Absurd conceptual difficulties...you mean like a burning bush that talks for example?

[betsy]

On 5/14/2016 at 2:02 PM, DogOnPorch said:

There is just evolution. No macro or micro. Those terms were made-up by church types.

Adaptation.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, betsy said:

Adaptation.

You can breed dogs by human selection and get new breeds of dogs.

Nature does it, too.

Evolution.

[betsy]

Quote

Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs over time, and the theory of universal common descent. But the mechanisms are unknown and the theory of universal common descent is confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene research.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You can breed dogs by human selection and get new breeds of dogs.

Nature does it, too.

Evolution.

Doesn't matter even if no humans intervened with the breeding. 

  It may be a new breed....but they're still  of the same kind!

 

DOP, I don't think you understand what you're arguing for.  No offense, but your responses are dead give-aways.

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, betsy said:

  It may be a new breed....but they're still dogs!  Same kind!

 

 

So? What did you expect? An alligator? Alligators and dogs are still related...but so far down the evolutionary tree that the last common ancestor is some sort of amphibian from the Permian Era or the like.

Where did dogs come from?

Wolves.

 

[betsy]

They all refer to the "common" ancestor "so far down the line of evolution."   It's so far, far, far  down.

Translation:  I think. Maybe. Could be.  I'm merely guessing.

 

 

This macroevolution - and this huge obsession  linking, or tying, man to beasts...and transitioning from one beasts to another...... makes me think of mythological creatures. 

 

I think macroevolution was inspired by Greek mythological creatures.  Centaur, Echidna, Satyr, Gorgon, Minotaur, to name but a few.

There's so many of these hybrid creaures, of varying combinations:

 

Quote

List of hybrid creatures in mythology

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

They all refer to the "common" ancestor "so far down the line of evolution."   It's so far, far, far  down.

Translation:  I think. Maybe. Could be.  I'm merely guessing.

 

Maybe it was a figure of speech...

[betsy]

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Maybe it was a figure of speech...

 

Yep.    "So far down the line of evolution," being a figure of speech for......."I'm merely guessing."

Edited May 29, 2017 by betsy

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Yep.    "So far down the line of evolution," being a figure of speech for......."I'm merely guessing."

Well you gotta look at what happened BEFORE the bible came into existence. A book written (and rewritten) by MAN, not by 'god'.

[betsy]

13 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Well you gotta look at what happened BEFORE the bible came into existence. A book written (and rewritten) by MAN, not by 'god'.

What about it?  The fact that it's been written and re-written by man.....does not change the fact that some statements in the Bible had been proven true by science! 

 

The universe had a beginning.....and the universe is stretching.   Both, stated in the Bible!

Hahahaha....it is science, that's trying to catch up with the Bible! 

 

 

 

 

You're an evolutionist.....this should be extremely of interest to you!

 

Genesis 1

²⁰ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 

  Moving creatures that has life,  came to life in the water.  Does that strikes a chord with Darwinists?

 

 

Looks like "man" who wrote the Bible, knew more than our scientists today!

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by betsy

[Wilber]

 

 

How many universes are there?

[BubbleGumYum]

Microevolution is small-scale change, usually cosmetic in nature.

Macroevolution is large-scale change, involving entirely new traits and bodyplans.

Microevolution has been known about pretty much since the dawn of man. It's not controversial. When people say "evolution is as proven as gravity," this is what they mean.

Macroevolution is still a mystery, as the acclaimed Dr. Tour points out. Anyone who says otherwise is bluffing.

[betsy]

Here's an interesting Open Letter penned by James Tour, aimed at his colleagues.  It's a very long letter, he explained scientific stuffs......and he confidently posed a challenge to his colleagues to counter him.  It's quite long so let me just give his simple question.

 

 

Quote

 

An Open Letter to My Colleagues

James Tour

 

Could time really have worked such magic?

 

http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

[betsy]

James Tour is quite aggressive.  He openly challenge any scientist giving disinformation.  Like this one, when he chastised Jeremy England:

 

Quote

On Origin of Life, Synthetic Chemist James Tour Delivers Chastisement to Jeremy England

 

The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms.

We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery.
We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/with-a-footnote-synthetic-chemist-james-tour-delivers-chastisement-to-mits-jeremy-england/

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

James Tour is quite aggressive.  He openly challenge any scientist giving disinformation.  Like this one, when he chastised Jeremy England:

Chastised? Taken out to the woodshed? Slashing? The Intelligent Design nitwits are certainly over the top with their rhetoric.

In a universe of billions of billions of planets, we have explored less than a dozen, and those only extremely superficially. The statement " Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless" is completely devoid of any meaning. That is like saying I sampled 3 people (actually more like 0.00000000000000003 people)  and predicted the outcome of the 2168 US election.

Equally the statement " The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms. " is meaningless, and I would go as far to say in that case Tour is absolutely wrong. Comparing a day/week/month long experiment with a multitude of conditions that exist over billions of years is irrelevant, and calling it well understood is completely wrong. If those are indeed Tour's words then I would say he has taken a severe blow to his otherwise good credibility.

[betsy]

13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Chastised? Taken out to the woodshed? Slashing? The Intelligent Design nitwits are certainly over the top with their rhetoric.

In a universe of billions of billions of planets, we have explored less than a dozen, and those only extremely superficially. The statement " Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless" is completely devoid of any meaning. That is like saying I sampled 3 people (actually more like 0.00000000000000003 people)  and predicted the outcome of the 2168 US election.

Equally the statement " The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms. " is meaningless, and I would go as far to say in that case Tour is absolutely wrong. Comparing a day/week/month long experiment with a multitude of conditions that exist over billions of years is irrelevant, and calling it well understood is completely wrong. If those are indeed Tour's words then I would say he has taken a severe blow to his otherwise good credibility.

I suppose, it depends on how you look at it.

 

When a scientist is boldly - and publicly - corrected by a fellow-scientist, what more when the implication is that the scientist is fabricating or distorting facts -  which is a direct attack on that scientist's credibility - that is a chastisement.  

 

Chastise - to censure severely : castigate

• The coach chastised the players for their mistakes.  (Merriam/Webster)

 

Censure -  : a judgment involving condemnation

• unorthodox practices awaiting the censure of the city council

 

It's a public rebuke, to boot! 

England made this claim in an interview with Natalie Wolchover for Quanta. :

Quote

If one understands the second law of thermodynamics, according to some physicists,¹⁵ “You [can] start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.”¹⁶

 

.....which Tour responded to:

 

Quote

 

The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms.

We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/with-a-footnote-synthetic-chemist-james-tour-delivers-chastisement-to-mits-jeremy-england/

 

 

Tour's practically saying...."Here's how it is (and Tour  gives the scientific explanations).  England made a mistake!  Either England did not do his homework, or he is lying."  

 

Either way, it's a big punch to England's credibility as a man of science. 

 

 

The rest of your post is an eye-roller.  Tour, as a man of science, is pointing at what has been observed.

England should know better than to make a conclusion on something that hasn't been observed!   Especially so when what has been observed and analyzed (and experimented), had not given anything to suggest that his speculations are likely!

 

You're accepting mere speculation for a fact .   That's so typical with atheist evolutionists.  They accept pseudoscience......they don't seem to know the difference, or they don't care - as long as it suits their agenda.

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

Tour comes swinging out towards the science community - daring anyone among the many, many scientists,  to challenge his claims!

 

Quote

 

Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs over time, and the theory of universal common descent.

But the mechanisms are unknown and the theory of universal common descent is confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene research.

 

And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating.

 

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Note:  that blog was last updated in Aug 2017.

 

 

As far as I know, no one among them, had come out to challenge him.

Edited January 17, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Either way, it's a big punch to England's credibility as a man of science.

Fine, it is a big punch. Well the knock-out blow is the one I score when I responded to his ridiculous claim: " The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms. " by pointing out that conducting a couple of experiments in limited circumstances in no way is a "well understanding" of the countless different conditions that existed upon the Earth over billions of years. I can server up rhetoric just as well as your intelligent design nitwits.

3 hours ago, betsy said:

You're accepting mere speculation for a fact .   That's so typical with atheist evolutionists.  They accept pseudoscience......they don't seem to know the difference, or they don't care - as long as it suits their agenda.

Really? You are going with that? Not even worth responding to.

[betsy]

20 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Fine, it is a big punch. Well the knock-out blow is the one I score when I responded to his ridiculous claim: " The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms. " by pointing out that conducting a couple of experiments in limited circumstances in no way is a "well understanding" of the countless different conditions that existed upon the Earth over billions of years. I can server up rhetoric just as well as your intelligent design nitwits.

Really? You are going with that? Not even worth responding to.

So..........you know more than a world-famous, nobel-winning chemist. 

If that's what you think, what more can I say?

 

PS: 

maybe, you be the one to  refute him......since no other scientist would.

Edited January 18, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

So..........you know more than a world-famous, nobel-winning chemist. 

If that's what you think, what more can I say?

maybe, you be the one to  refute him......since no other scientist would.

James Tour is a well known chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. I am unaware that he won the nobel prize, could you cite your source for that? I never claimed to know more than him in his field. Besides not commenting on his field earlier, he made a ridiculous claim which also runs completely counter to his main claim as well. His general issue with macroevolution is that we do not have a very complete understanding, but then he goes on and makes the amateur claim that something is completely understood. Even bright minds make stupid mistakes, and that is a glaring example of one.

You have no understanding of the scientific process. Science is not debated in blogs, it is a discipline based on peer review. His "challenge" only has meaning to non-scientists.

[betsy]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

James Tour is a well known chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. I am unaware that he won the nobel prize, could you cite your source for that? I never claimed to know more than him in his field. Besides not commenting on his field earlier, he made a ridiculous claim which also runs completely counter to his main claim as well. His general issue with macroevolution is that we do not have a very complete understanding, but then he goes on and makes the amateur claim that something is completely understood. Even bright minds make stupid mistakes, and that is a glaring example of one.[/quote]

I don't think you're in any position to judge his claims, unless you are a chemist just like him. 

No, I misunderstood about the nobel prize....but anyway, here are his awards:

 

Quote

 

Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.^[41] He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.^[42]

Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.^[43] Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012.

Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009. That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

 Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989. In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.^[44] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012. 

 

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

 

 

 

Quote

You have no understanding of the scientific process. Science is not debated in blogs, it is a discipline based on peer review. His "challenge" only has meaning to non-scientists.

You don't, either.    But unlike you (and some of the scientist-wanna-be we see in forums), I don't pretend that I do.

Unless you're a scientist (in the same field as Tour), you wouldn't understand much about what he's explaining.

Even scientists don't know much about other fields of science, unless they specialize in it!  And you want me to take you seriously?  You think I'm dozey?

 

 

Richard Lewontin spoiled it for you.  The gig is up.

Quote

First, no one can know and understand everything.

Even individual scientists are ignorant about most of the body of scientific knowledge, and it is not simply that biologists do not understand quantum mechanics. If I were to ask my colleagues in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard to explain the evolutionary importance of RNA editing in trypanosomes, they would be just as mystified by the question as the typical well-educated reader of this review.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/

 

 What are your credentials?

 

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

I don't think you're in any position to judge his claims, unless you are a chemist just like him.

When he makes a claim about chemistry I agree, but that was not his claim.