qetzal
Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,08:49) | | [T]he basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer. |
Too many people get sidetracked by the word "randomness." It gives the wrong impression of what the theory of evolution (TOE) says. (Cf. the 'tornado in a junkyard' metaphor.)
In reality, much of what happens according to the TOE is decidedly non-random. The TOE merely holds (among other things) that there is no intended outcome, no external agency that guides evolution toward some prespecified goal.
Thus, I think it's more useful to say this conflict is about non-teleological versus teleological claims, or undirected versus directed outcomes.
| Quote | | There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? |
Adequate empirical evidence. E.g. TOE predicts X, ID predicts Y, your Third Choice (TC) predicts Z. Perform a study to determine which of X, Y, or Z is actually observed. If the results are Z & not-X & not-Y, that's evidence in support of TC.
All I've seen so far is arguments for why TC could be true. Even if I accepted those arguments as valid, that would merely establish TC as a possibility. It wouldn't be a reason to accept it.
| Quote | I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short.
What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected? |
That's already scientifically accepted.
| Quote | | How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level? |
Yes, this is why quantum effects are accepted at the quantum level. This doesn't establish the degree of
interconnection required in your proposal. (Or in Penrose-Hameroff's, as best I can tell.)
| Quote | | What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects? |
Given that life depends directly on chemistry, and quantum effects play an integral role in chemistry, this is already established as well.
| Quote | | What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects? |
Adequate empirical evidence.
| Quote | | What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition? |
Even that were true, wouldn't support the claim the evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects.
| Quote | From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code…
Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process.
From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages…
The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. |
As we discussed on the previous thread, at least some of Patel's proposals for how DNA replication might involve quantum superposition effects are clearly incompatible with known biochemistry. As far as I can tell, the rest are purely speculative at best.
| Quote | There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point.
The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? |
Actually, the fact that it's still speculative is exactly the point. Without data that supports the speculation, there's no reason to accept it. Especially not when we already have a theory that does a damn good job of explaining what we see (the TOE, of course).
| Quote | | BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred “randomly” from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones. |
Agreed.
|
