Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

On the Predictive Value of Theory of Evolution Versus the Theory of God-Did-It


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Feb 10, 2012, 1:19:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 10, 2012, 1:23:38 PM PST
noman says:
NOT a peer review article. Interesting take on belief, the placebo effect and religion:

The Dark Side of the Placebo Effect: When Intense Belief Kills

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/the-dark-side-of-the-placebo-effect-when-intense-belief-kills/245065/

AND

Sleep Paralysis: Night-mares, Nocebos, and the Mind-Body Connection (Studies in Medical Anthropology)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 1:31:08 PM PST
Brian Curtis wrote:
"YouTube is the go-to scientific authority for people who find Wikipedia too intimidating. "
===========================
The dynamic visual features of YouTube might replace many educational institutions with such awesome tool of empowering all people to show their work without the hassles of bureaucratic corporations.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 2:11:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 10, 2012, 2:14:09 PM PST
Physics Geek wrote:
"A deflection would cover the entire screen with some probability (diffraction-like). What actually happens is interference which is only mathematically consistent with a wave."
=================================================

What is it that interferes?

Are you saying that matter waves electromagnetic in nature?
Or
Are you saying that electrons interfere with each other?
=====================================
In the experiment of Cornell at:

http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~muchomas/P214/Notes/QuantumMechanics/node6.html

the slits used to induce diffraction are the spacing of crystal measuring 2.34 Å (Angstroms). It is impossible to exclude the Coulomb forces at such small dimensions and deflection, not diffraction, is the working effect.

As the article states:
=========Quote======================
"de Broglie did not spell out the connection between probabilities and intensities quite so clearly. He was mostly responsible for the connections between momentum and wave vector and energy and frequency. "
=========end of Quote======================

So, if you allege that matter-waves are real, you must ascertain the amount of energy of the waves in relation to the electron mass, kinetic energy, or both.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 2:18:29 PM PST
Don Jennings says:
//Physics Geek says:
"At v = 0, p = 0, and wavelength goes to infinity."
Good thing nothing can stop then. Heisenberg prevents zero velocity...//

What th.. wha the flack? In Hewie's equation if v goes to zero p (= mv) also goes to zero. Also the frequency of the particle goes to zero -- i.e., it is DC. But as you note, no particle will have momentum zero because dx.dv> kh

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 2:23:46 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
"What is it that interferes?"

The probability waves are the most widely accepted explanation.

"Are you saying that matter waves [are?] electromagnetic in nature?"

No.

"Are you saying that electrons interfere with each other?"

Not really. I am saying their waves functions are interfering. This still happens with only a single electron, so I the wave function through each slit is interfering with the wave function from the other slit.

And your quote continues:
"The frequency-energy connection is not something that we will deal with in this course. It comes from other experiments (such as the photo-electric effect) which we will not cover; we include it here only for completeness."
Please stop quote mining. Its unbecoming of civil discourse.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 2:26:00 PM PST
Don Jennings wrote:
"But as you note, no particle will have momentum zero because dx.dv> kh"
=====================================
dv -->0 requires dx -->infinity.

That means the location of the particle, not its wavelength, is uncertain.

Thus, de Broglie's wavelength turns to Heisenberg's uncertainty of location.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 2:32:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 10, 2012, 2:32:40 PM PST
Physics Geek wrote:
"The probability waves are the most widely accepted explanation."
==================================================
Are the probability waves mathematical in nature?
How would probability waves declare themselves physical entities?

.......................
Physics Geek wrote:
"Please stop quote mining. Its unbecoming of civil discourse. "
==============================================
I love it when idi0ts tell other to quit being id0ts.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 3:01:23 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
"Are the probability waves mathematical in nature?
How would probability waves declare themselves physical entities?"

Yes and no. There appears to be some physical meaning to them.

"I love it when idi0ts tell other to quit being id0ts."
Do you think it makes someone look like an id0t to take quote a source and use it to misrepresent the source? You question was answered by the next lines you choose to leave out.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 3:28:26 PM PST
Physics Geek wrote:
"Yes and no. There appears to be some physical meaning to them."
================================================
Do you really think that an modern nation would graduate students who could not keep their heads straight in the dismal manner you display in your replies?

How would "yes", "and", "no", or "appear" constitute a scientific discussion?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 3:39:50 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
The probability waves work. The are fantastically accurate. Exactly what the math means has been hotly debated. So in this case Yes they are mathematical in nature and no they do not seem to be pure mathematical constructs. They appear to have a deeper meaning.

Quote: "The wave function is absolutely central to quantum mechanics: it makes the subject what it is. Also; it is the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in what quantum mechanics means in nature, and even how nature itself behaves at the atomic scale and beyond - which continue in debate to this day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

In other words, Yes I can declare the cat to be dead and alive at the same time and be completely correct.

I did not realize that critical thinking was not required for engineers to graduate. I apologize and will attempt to spell everything out more carefully, assuming of course that reading was a requirement.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 4:31:21 PM PST
Re el-Hewie, 2-10 2:32 PM: "Are the probability waves mathematical in nature?" Yes. They are described by Schrodinger's equation.

"How would probability waves declare themselves physical entities?" The simplest way is to take the square (or more usually, magnitude, by multiplying by the complex conjugate) to determine the probability density. However, experiments have been done which measure it directly.

If you knew ANYTHING about modern physics, you would be aware of all of this.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 4:45:13 PM PST
Doctor says:
Whoops

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012, 8:29:00 PM PST
Physics Geek wrote:
"The probability waves work. The are fantastically accurate."
=============================================

Isn't it ironic that Max Born, the man who emphatically defended the concept of the wave-functions through his student, Heisenberg, did not get the Nobel Prize until 1954, while his student earned it in 1932?

The last time I visited this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

it was less fancier than its current condition. But, mind you, the Hydrogen wave-forms given in the link below are so ubiquitous in physics as if the same Schroedinger equation represents the propagation of monochromatic light in single mode optical fibers. I got the exact shapes of light densities from fibers as the wave-functions of the hydrogen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png/400px-Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

Posted on Feb 12, 2012, 6:29:53 AM PST
noman says:
Darwin Day Today Feb 12
http://darwinday.org/events/

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 7:25:36 AM PST
noman wrote: "Darwin Day Today Feb 12"
===========================
I hope you would remind us with "Oxytocin Day", Sunday, the 13th of May.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 7:34:55 AM PST
Banished says:
I would call you a twit, but that would not be fair to twits.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 4:50:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 12, 2012, 4:50:53 PM PST
Irish Lace wrote:
"I would call you a twit, but that would not be fair to twits. "
============================================
If your really do not believe in heaven and hell, you might consider the fact that most of your fellow atheists are as annoying as hell. Here is what one of your favorite likes said about maternal bonding:
..............................
noman wrote:
"**Actually, that would be due to oxytocin release (as in all mammals):
Oxytocin Links Mothering Received, Mothering Bestowed and Adult Stress Responses."
======================
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgNo=2432&cdPage=98&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3J642OV1XXGNI&cdMsgID=Mx1MUN36MLBSDR#Mx1MUN36MLBSDR
======================

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 5:12:44 PM PST
Well, there's *evidence* for the effects of oxytocin. No evidence whatsoever that a creator somehow encourages mothers to be nice (or else they'll burn in hell, presumably).

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 5:19:28 PM PST
Christine M. Janis wrote:
"Well, there's *evidence* for the effects of oxytocin."
=====================================
You must assume that oxytocin has to get his/her asss off absolute void to full fledged existence with zero energy in order to do without a doer.

You still need few hundred thousands supporters in order to get Mother Day changed to Oxytocin Day.
You got a handful supporters, here.
Cross your fingers.

Posted on Feb 12, 2012, 5:43:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 12, 2012, 5:43:32 PM PST
Tero says:
The human mind has evolved through all of our hominid species and then homo sapiens as well to analyze things in terms of humans. We try to predict what someone will do even when looking through binoculars at say an enemy.

This is the reason the mind tries to seek purpose and meaning in everything, even inanimate objects. This is why we are obsessed with beginnings, ends, purposes and causes.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 5:45:18 PM PST
noman says:
I saw the mention of "Oxytocin" and I had to look...<sigh> Now I know why the Scooby Gang always split up to go look for the monster. Oh well...

RE: "Mohamed F. El-Hewie says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]
Christine M. Janis wrote:
"Well, there's *evidence* for the effects of oxytocin."
=====================================
RE: "You must assume that oxytocin has to get his/her asss off absolute void to full fledged existence with zero energy in order to do without a doer."

**An example of authentic frontier gibberish. Making a wild guess at what you've said... If by "doer" you mean 'God"...not part of pharmacology or neurobiology.

RE: "...You still need few hundred thousands supporters in order to get Mother Day changed to Oxytocin Day.
You got a handful supporters, here.
Cross your fingers. "

**And I vaguely recall you making this rambling rant earlier. Still nonsense. Again, as usual, has nothing to do with the argument.

However (for the rational posters):

" The Neuroscience of Maternal Behaviour.
Authors: Mortimer, Ann M.1 a.m.mortimer@hull.ac.uk
Source: Current Psychiatry Reviews; 2007, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p129-135

Abstract:
Compared to the animal literature, the human literature on genetic, hormonal and neural mechanisms underlying the initiation, establishment and maintenance of maternal behaviour is small. While there are obvious parallels in the behaviour itself between human mothers and other mammals, there is little evidence for the primacy of biological mechanisms as opposed to cultural and experiential factors. In particular the concept of a human sensitive period after birth when `bonding' must occur, analogous to the sensitive period in mammals, has lost importance. However there are important similarities between the effects of poor maternal care in other mammals and in human children, specifically inappropriate overactivation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) and a subsequent cascade of diverse and adverse consequences. It is likely that such enhanced stress responsiveness and its results does impact on future maternal care, creating the possibility of transgenerational cycles of inadequate maternal behaviour. The implications for antenatal, postnatal and child protection interventions are briefly discussed."

AND

" Sex Differences in the Brain, Behavior, and Neuropsychiatric Disorders.
Authors: Ai-Min Bao1 baoaimin@zju.edu.cn Swaab, Dick F.2
Source: Neuroscientist; Oct2010, Vol. 16 Issue 5, p550-565

Abstract:
Sex differences in the brain are reflected in behavior and in the risk for neuropsychiatric disorders. The fetal brain develops in the male direction due to a direct effect of testosterone on the developing neurons, or in the female direction due to the absence of such a testosterone surge. Because sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place earlier in intrauterine life than sexual differentiation of the brain, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other . Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality), pedophilia, sex differences in cognition, and the risks for neuropsychiatric disorders are programmed into our brains during early development. There is no proof that postnatal social environment has any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. Structural and functional sex differences in brain areas, together with changes in sex hormone levels and their receptors in development and adulthood, are closely related to sex differences in behavior and neuropsychiatric disorders. Knowing that such a relationship exists may help bring about sex-specific therapeutic strategies."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 6:18:52 PM PST
B. A. Daley says:
B. A. Daley says:
Re Daley, 2-9 4:26 AM: "Natural selection 'selected' life from matter?"

Robert A. Saunders says: "Yes. When a structure formed that could self-replicate, it was "selected" to do so."

Papawaron says: Chance didn't do it, Doc. Natural selection did it.

BAD: Natural selection 'selected' life from matter?

Okay, BAD, let's try to stay on point here.....don't go wandering off into the bush whenever you think you see something move.

The title of this forum is "On the Predictive Value of Theory of Evolution Versus the Theory of God-Did-It". Did you see the term "Theory of Evolution" in the title? I'm sure you did, as did I. Did you see the term "Abiogensis" in the title? No?, well neither did I, BAD, so I addressed my comment to Doc in light of the subject of this forum. See how this works?

If you want to talk about abiogenesis vs, goddidit, then perhaps you should start another forum. But don't dirty this one with your crude little imflammatory bombs.......they aren't appreciated.

Robert A. Saunders says: "Yes. When a structure formed that could self-replicate, it was "selected" to do so."

BAD: Mr. Saunders, your comments are (apparently) not appreciated by Papa Waron.

Papawaron says: How wrong can one person be, BAD? You are pushing the limits of stupidity, now.

Robert is exactly right.....as soon as a self replicateable structure formed, and natural selection acted upon it, we have life!

BAD: But if what Mr. Saunders said is true, as you yourself have affirmed, then it must be relevant. How something so stupid can be so relevant is unclear to me, but I feel confident you will continue to enlighten.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 6:37:59 PM PST
Papawaron says:
I will, BAD. I chose to confine my remarks to the Forum's initial post. You chose to broaden it. I refused to follow your lead outside the ststed parameters of this forum. Robert chose to follow your lead, however, and also wandered off the forum stated direction.

I commented to you in the vein I chose. Robert responded to you in the vein you chose. Had I chosen to respond to you at your level, I too would have made a response similar to Robert's. But I did not. He and I are commenting on different facets......he on abiogenesis, and myself on evolution. Each of our responses are accurate for the context we chose.

However, YOU are wrong in both contexts......because YOU are conflating two very different disciplines, and confusing comments meant for one discipline (abiogenesis) as applicable to the other discipline (evolution.)

BAD, you are confused, simplistic, ad willfully ignorant. I think you might consider asking your God to unfog your mind, and grant you a moment of clarity so that you don't embarass yourself further.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2012, 8:26:01 PM PST
Re Papawaron, above: I entirely agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012, 8:48:50 AM PST
That's the wonderful thing about atheism, one atheists views do not represent a fundamental belief of the group.

All atheism means is that "one does not believe in god[s]". All other beliefs belong to the atheist alone; and others are free to agree or not.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9973 1 hour ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 2837 18 hours ago
Teacher Attacks Theory of Evolution 94 22 hours ago
Good to use, but would you be allowed to? Reflective Roof Coatings. 7 4 days ago
Transposons - A new finding that we are made up of an accumulation of dead viruses, and that each of us is unique and can never be cloned exactly 7 5 days ago
This won't scare many away from going for it. Pro football. 3 8 days ago
Expanding universe question. 40 8 days ago
High cabin pressure can cause people to pass out? I don't think so. 1 9 days ago
Ocean Floor Mapping 22 18 days ago
NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout 2 21 days ago
Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann cuts and runs from Court. 14 25 days ago
Real cost of Wind and Solar power generation to consider. 0 25 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  70
Total posts:  2553
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 31, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers