Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking (3)
- From: "Ben Standeven" <berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Apr 2007 15:39:56 -0700
On Apr 8, 9:11 am, "paramecium epimecium@xxxxxxxxx"
<paramecium.epimecium@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There has always been highly distinguished scientists of impeccable
credentials with no religious motivations, and not bible thumping
hicks, who openly question the theory of classical mechanics. The first big
problem with classical mechanics is that the astronomical record does not honestly
viewed support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Hawking of
Oxford has described as "the trade secret of cosmology."
Classical physics requires transitional positions for current positions.
These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each instant of time
as they revolved into the present positions, so the astronomical record
should show these gradual changes.
But it doesn't.
Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new stars out of nowhere,
fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over
time. It is almost entirely devoid of positions that can plausibly be
identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is
popularly known as the "missing trail" problem, and it is massively
systematic across different stars and time periods.
What's worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more
stars are discovered, as the new stars just resemble those already
found and don't fill in the gaps. In Newton's day, it was easy to
claim that the stars were there but had not been discovered. Problem
is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued stars, from
all galaxies and cosmologic eras, and we still haven't found all of
the intermediate locations required to honestly say there is a gradual
transition in location throughout the astronomical record for physical objects
present today.
Enter Quantum Leaps:
The usual response of astronomers is the theory of quantum
mechanics, Planck's great contribution, which basically says that
motion occurs not gradually, but in large steps or spurts. This
would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the astronomical
record. Quantum mechanics still has no explanation for the large
jumps from one location to another.
Computer Technology and Ballistic analysis:
Another development that has undermined momentum conservation is the spread of
computers into particle dynamics. Computers have shown that when
the characteristics of different physical bodies are encoded in
numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences
based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any
number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data
as those drawn up by humans to fit a linear worldline.
The data can say "no momentum" just as loudly as they say
"momentum"; it's just the pattern-craving human mind that gives
prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as linear
analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into a
straight line, (this is called ballistic analysis) it tends to
generate lines with all objects at the endpoints and no particles
forming the crucial middle regions of the line that Newtonian physics
demands. As a result of this, many physicists have in practice stopped
using the idea of initial and final locations when classifying new particles.
When the British Museum of Natural Philosophy did this a few years ago,
they started a small war in scientific circles.
Enter the Pendulum:
Mechanics also suffers from the problem that many sequences which look
logical based on the progression of one set of generalized coordinates
suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For
example, the vertical point of a pendulum swing superficially seems to
make a good intermediate between its two endpoints, until one examines the
velocity of the bob, which is not intermediate in value,
nor is the way in which it behaves upon collision.
Kinetic Analysis of Particle Interactions
The emergence of one particle from another has never been directly
observed by science. Kinetic analysis based on computer analysis
of particle interactions is not direct observation of one particle emerging
from another, and is not proof of momentum conservation because it ignores the
time limitations of the interaction cycle of the particle. For the
particle changes to occur randomly and then to be selected by
a linear operator requires many interaction cycles which is feasible
in rapidly moving photons and neutrinos, but becomes problematic
in higher quark generations which have masses in GeV instead of
eV.
Enter Molecular Dynamics:
More difficult to explain are complex chemical reactions and molecular
structures that are made of atoms. There are no plausible
accounts of how they could be constructed from other simpler molecules
because as one hypothesizes back down the hypothetical chain of
complexity, one comes to a point at which the chemical simply won't
work if it gets any simpler.
At this stage, the process couldn't be constructed from anything else
because there is nothing simpler for it to have constructed from. And at
this stage, the object is still far too complex to be composed
of any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the
complex structures of molecules was limited enough, and hopes for the
discovery of intermediate chemicals that they could be built from wide-open
enough, that chemists could ignore this problem. But as chemical research
has progressed, this gap too has been filled with more and more inconvenient
facts. As in the case of the other problems challenging classical physics, the
key thing here is the intellectual direction: research is consistently making
the problem worse, not better.http://www.charliewagner.net/
Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since
physics was first proposed is that chemistry has found thousands of
different proteins that make up the universe. It was hoped that a
thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of
relationships of graded similarity that the periodic table implies. But it
hasn't. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species
that examination of gross macroscopic structure does. It's the same
old story of a table with all columns and no rows!http://www.charliewagner.net/
Analysis of the closeness and distance between different elements
reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence
difference matrix of p-shell electrons in the standard Dayhoff
Atlas of Proton Structure and Function, Carbon is as close to Neon
as Fluorine is! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of
chemicals.
Enter Baryogenesis
Another problem with physics that has only gotten worse with
increasing chemical knowledge is the question of how matter initially
emerged from energy. The simplest possible atom imaginable
within the limits of chemistry, let alone the simplest actually existing
atom, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-
material physical event. So even if nuclear physics has an explanation of how
atomic species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball
rolling" by producing the first atom from something that is not an
atom.
Chemistry Not Even Science After All
Many such as Karl Popper, for example, have questioned whether
chemistry is a science at all, because its assertions are not
potentially falsifiable. A true science, like psychology, makes claims
that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability
is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification
does not happen. But chemistry does not make claims of this kind.
Science is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support
chemistry are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be,
since the origin of atoms in the universe was a unique event. Chemistry
isn't even science, it's a simply smelly garbage that is left over
from the last experiment before the cleaning people show up.http://www.charliewagner.net/
charlie wagner
Heh, heh, heh.... Unfortunately, there is some confusion between
chemistry
and physics here; I'm too lazy to fix it.
.
- References:
- Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking (3)
- From: paratope.epitope@xxxxxxxxx
- Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking (3)
- Prev by Date: Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- Next by Date: Re: Test your sixth sense
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking (3)
- Next by thread: Nostradamus - Supernatural powers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
