This thread is about "randomness". It is meant to be a place to establish some consistent terminology.

So a question for GoodScienceForYou: How do you describe a natural process that produces different results? And how do you characterize the results of that process? Take snowflakes for instance. One could examine millions of snowflakes and most likely not find any two that are identical. This is because Ice crystal formation is sensitive to small scale condition variances. And because the snowflakes fall through different humidity and temperature conditions. The laws of physics combined with the complexity of the system produces a phenomenon called 'chaos'. That is unpredictability in complex systems. From the wiki:

Quote:

Chaos theory is an area of inquiry in mathematics, physics, and philosophy which studies the behavior of certain dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

You see, the system involves NO randomness, just how you like it. Which I agree with. But how do you characterize all of the variation in the snowflakes?

This is a phylosophy that has no scientific testing.

If you don't have the capacity to understand cause and effect, I suggest that you get out of science and get a new hobby.

Each and ever event, action, energy movement, causes other events to take place.

If you actually believe in random that would destroy the theory of evolution completely. Because you rely on it being a process with cause and effect. Are you really that brainwashed?

When people have conflicting ideas in their minds they are confused and their IQ's are lowered by this.

You cannot have "random" in one part of your beliefs and "no random" in the other parts.  Can't you understand that?

There is no such thing as random in the physical universe.
If it was a "real" thing, there would be no universe.
Just like there would be no life if there was random in the DNA.
Please tell me you are not a believer in fantasy, and you have a degree in science? ::)

There is no such thing as random in the universe.

The structure of the universe is set in motion by the laws of physics.  Random means no structure.

Because the human mind is to feeble to focus on billions of interactions in one split second, is no excuse to show even more ignorance.

You need to realize that humans are flawed and because of that they make up crap beliefs to fill in where they are weak.

This is the basis of your religion.

If you seek the truth you would be amazed at how your intelligence goes up. Because there is no confusion in the truth.  It is always the same and never changes.

The truth is always the same and never changes. 

Religious bovine in science, is always changing to fit the beliefs of the times. Get free of all religious beliefs and seek the truth.

Can point out where he said true randomness exists please?

He just described the apperance of randomness is complex systems when starting conditions are not known exactly. This has been explained to you, repeatedly. I referred to it as apparently randomness.

Randomness exists from the point of view of the observer. If I toss a coin I can treat the outcome as random. It doesn't matter if it's not, for my purposes it is, and thus I can treat it as such and describe it as such.

Got it? I doubt it.

Quote:

There is no such thing as random in the universe. The structure of the universe is set in motion by the laws of physics.  Random means no structure. Because the human mind is to feeble to focus on billions of interactions in one split second, is no excuse to show even more ignorance. You need to realize that humans are flawed and because of that they make up crap beliefs to fill in where they are weak. This is the basis of your religion. If you seek the truth you would be amazed at how your intelligence goes up. Because there is no confusion in the truth.  It is always the same and never changes. The truth is always the same and never changes. Religious bovine in science, is always changing to fit the beliefs of the times. Get free of all religious beliefs and seek the truth.

You're describing determinism. I agree with determinism. I understand that nothing escapes causality.

NEVERTHELESS complexity produces "apparent randomness". Snowflakes, traffic, coin flipping. All random to the observer. You can't deny this any longer. It's time to accept it.

Quote:

This is a phylosophy that has no scientific testing.

Didn't they make you roll dice or flip coins in school? I thought everyone did this.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:14am:

Quote: This is a phylosophy that has no scientific testing. Didn't they make you roll dice or flip coins in school? I thought everyone did this.

Listen to this video by one of your kind. He is one of the most delusional people in science, yet he is defending the fact that there is no random.  How the dice were thrown and the results are what actually happened. How the cards are dealt is exactly how the cards are dealt and you cannot change that. Because you are too feeble minded to see all the laws of physics working on the cards, does not prove random. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

If you believe in random, you are a fool.  It negates all of science, negates any form of rigors in testing, because if random was real, you could not do even one experiment.

You choose to believe in random because it fits your dumb ass belief in Evodelusion which is religious based.
Don't you know this whole belief system came from a pagan religion.

You need to read what I teach, if you ever want to be free of these delusional beliefs, based on human weakness.

Give up you nonsense and listen to me.  If you can't do that, you will always be one of the fleas in the jar.

There was this experiment, in which they placed hundreds of fleas in a jar.  The fleas would jump up and hit the lid over and over.  Then they took off the lid and the fleas, still jumped up, but just to the height were the lid was.

I am taking the lid off your jar.  It is OK to jump out of the friggin jar and start on your way to freedom of thought. To get into objective awareness, and no logical fallacies.

You cannot have random in one part of your science and then totally disregard it in another part, and think you have an integrated science. There is only one truth in the matter and it is always the same.  It is impossible to integrate random in your belief system, because it conflicts with most of the rest of your beliefs.

I'm going to flip a coin. The universe is deterministic. Can you tell me it isn't going to be heads or tails?

Use the laws of physics to perfectly predict the outcome. Can you do this? If so HOW? If not WHY NOT?

So feeble minded that when MaDduk stated "I believe everything is deterministic" he clearly didn't mean it, hence the reason you keep arguing against his position...

Oh no, wait, thats a straw man again.

MarDuk, sorry, and why is there no edit facility?

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:30am:

I'm going to flip a coin. The universe is deterministic. Can you tell me it isn't going to be heads or tails? Use the laws of physics to perfectly predict the outcome. Can you do this? If so HOW? If not WHY NOT?

I have answered this before, but you did not read it. You are not a good student because you don't know how to learn and you need to read what I have already written.

We do not have the tools to determine the outcome. It requires a computer that is far more advanced than we have now. In the future computers will ruin all of gamboling, lotteries, and such.

However, if we had a computer that could calculate all the physics involved you could predict the outcome as soon as the coin was flipped. If you could see the mechanics inside the hand of the person doing the toss, you could do it at the point of the initial energy of the movement of the thumb.

Take 10 (or 20 or 30 or how ever many you need) video cameras on high speed (10,000 frames per second would do it) and look at all the forces in play. then you would see the propulsion in involved and the angles of the mass, calculate the vectors and you would have your answer. All you would need to know is the exact shape of the coin, masses at any point on the coin etc.
It is because you are not capable of understanding there is no random, and you were brainwashed into this false belief that you think it is real.

I feel sorry for you, but you accept logical fallacies from your teachers, because they accept logical fallacies as real, and their teachers did as well.  Your teachers are brainwashed into this logical fallacy because they are too weak minded to think for themselves.  ::)

Why did I just watch a 10 minute video in the Randomness thread that makes not a single mention of randomness? Are you thrilled with wasting peoples' time?

What the hell is the matter with you?

Quote:

I have answered this before, but you did not read it. You are not a good student because you don't know how to learn and you need to read what I have already written. We do not have the tools to determine the outcome. It requires a computer that is far more advanced than we have now. In the future computers will ruin all of gamboling, lotteries, and such. However, if we had a computer that could calculate all the physics involved you could predict the outcome as soon as the coin was flipped. If you could see the mechanics inside the hand of the person doing the toss, you could do it at the point of the initial energy of the movement of the thumb. Take 10 (or 20 or 30 or how ever many you need) video cameras on high speed (10,000 frames per second would do it) and look at all the forces in play. then you would see the propulsion in involved and the angles of the mass, calculate the vectors and you would have your answer. All you would need to know is the exact shape of the coin, masses at any point on the coin etc. It is because you are not capable of understanding there is no random, and you were brainwashed into this false belief that you think it is real. I feel sorry for you, but you accept logical fallacies from your teachers, because they accept logical fallacies as real, and their teachers did as well.  Your teachers are brainwashed into this logical fallacy because they are too weak minded to think for themselves.  Roll Eyes

You are so full of garbage.

Quote:

In the future computers will ruin all of gamboling, lotteries, and such.

LOL.. Yeah, a computer is going to tell you where the roulette marble will fall even before the dealer drops it on the wheel.

If you believe that will EVER happen you're the delusional one. You are truly out of your mind.

Quote:

We do not have the tools to determine the outcome.

EXACTLY. When this is the case we commonly call this a "random" outcome.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:55am:

Why did I just watch a 10 minute video in the Randomness thread that makes not a single mention of randomness? Are you thrilled with wasting peoples' time? What the hell is the matter with you?

Obviously you did not listen to the video. This is in response to the creationists mathematical proof that human DNA or any DNA could not randomly occur by the laws of mathematics.  They state that the odds of human DNA being produced by random events could only occur in hundreds of trillions of years, using random.
Since I know that random is not a real scientific term in physics, I would not use their arguments from pure math.

But if you accept randomness, then you would accept their argument.  You cannot have conflicting  "laws"  in science.  You cannot violate the laws of physics and call Evolution as science.
We all know that the laws of physics cannot be broken, yet you think you can. Why are you so ignorant of this?

That's not in the video. Nowhere. I watched it all.

No trust.

Quote:

But if you accept randomness, then you would accept their argument.  You cannot have conflicting  "laws"  in science.  You cannot violate the laws of physics and call Evolution as science. We all know that the laws of physics cannot be broken, yet you think yo can. Why are you so ignorant of this?

Snowflakes. All different. Address this. Don't cut and paste any of your preaching. Don't post a video that doesn't talk about snowflakes. Address the fact that any two snowflakes are extremely likely to be identical.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 11:22am:

Quote: But if you accept randomness, then you would accept their argument.  You cannot have conflicting  "laws"  in science.  You cannot violate the laws of physics and call Evolution as science. We all know that the laws of physics cannot be broken, yet you think yo can. Why are you so ignorant of this? Snowflakes. All different. Address this. Don't cut and paste any of your preaching. Don't post a video that doesn't talk about snowflakes. Address the fact that any two snowflakes are extremely likely to be identical.

It amazes me that you do not have the ability to see how the laws of physics operate in all things.

The answer is the same. The cause of the snow flake is moisture in the clouds that precipitates because of temperature and saturation of moistrue in the clouds (the laws of physics). It reaches a point where by the laws of physics it creates water droplets that freeze in the air. The shape of the snowflakes is caused by the speed at which the moisture is moving in the air and the temperature of the air. Since air is not dense the molecules act on it according to their conditions.  (Dry powder snow is caused by very cold air with lots of wind velocity).  If you could see the causes of this, you would not be able to ask such a stupid question.  You seem to have no vision or photographic memory, in your mind whereby you can see this principles taking place (I do). You have been brainwashed into the idea that snowflakes avoid the laws of physics.  Why do you believe such nonsense?  Everything in the universe follows the laws of science.  Why would you be so stupid as to think otherwise?

Could it be that you are brainwashed into delusional ideas that have no basis in science, but are part of a belief system?

Why are you so ignorant of this?
Why don't you go study weather?  It is a very interesting part of science.

If you were to study all parts of the ONE science, you would not try to avoid the laws of physics.  You would start to integrate them and not one time would you allow yourself to believe in logical fallacies, like random in the genome of any creature.

Random in the genome of any creature is certain death, no life would ever come from random. Get it?  You cannot violate the laws of science and call your religious beliefs "science".

What word to you use to describe the phenomenon that produces lots of different snowflakes, with the same laws of physics?

bump.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 12:25pm:

What word to you use to describe the phenomenon that produces lots of different snowflakes, with the same laws of physics?

I'm gonna go with evodelusionism.

Seek the truth and break free from your religion and then you can think for yourself! Snowflakes are all different because the physics made them that way and someday we'll have computers that will perfectly describe every snowflake that will North America every day until the year 3000. The lottery will be ruined!

You know what. I can see the appeal of arguing like this. You don't have to do ANY fact checking.

Snowflakes are all identical but we don't have the ability to examine them properly, they begin to melt before we see them under the microscope and they are all at intermediate melting stages when photographed.

You must show absolute proof that I am wrong.

I can refute you using pure logic as everyone know snowflakes are frozen water and water doesn't go into the air. Only a fool would think this. Break free of your delusion and allow me to teach you. If you think water can evaporate into the air then you have been brainwashed and I pity you.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

I can refute you using pure logic as everyone know snowflakes are frozen water and water doesn't go into the air. Only a fool would think this. Break free of your delusion and allow me to teach you. If you think water can evaporate into the air then you have been brainwashed and I pity you.

Aha, lies. Snowflakes are frozen water vapor, not frozen water. You have been deluded by the hydrodelusionists, learn to think for yourself. There is only one snowflake design, you cannot absolteuly prove I am wrong.

I can teach you, but you have to listen.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 2:24pm:

Seek the truth and break free from your religion and then you can think for yourself! Snowflakes are all different because the physics made them that way and someday we'll have computers that will perfectly describe every snowflake that will North America every day until the year 3000. The lottery will be ruined! You know what. I can see the appeal of arguing like this. You don't have to do ANY fact checking.

I have already written computer programs that strongly show and produce evidence that there is no random in the universe. The only limitation is the computer and the accuracy of the data.  That can only change as technology increases.  The software works about 80% of the time, and the data is only so accurate that I use.  As computers become more sophisticated and the accuracy of the data is tighter and more precise, it will eliminate gamboling and the lottery, because the lottery would go bust if only scientists with this program were to win.  It uses the principle that all things in the universe are connected, which is a scientific principle, from the big bang theory.

You think you live in modern times, but in 1000 years you will be thought of as an idiot who was living in the dark ages, believing in garbage science. Just like we know that bleeding people to rid them of disease was not science now.  However, all the "physicians" of those ages all believed they were modern and using the most advanced techniques that could ever be possible.
You are no different. You are wallowing around in fantasy beliefs and retarded because of it.

In 1000 years I predict that people will only die when they are tired of living, because the cause of old age and death will be removed by science.  I hypothesize that the cause of old age and death is in the next level down from the DNA that we can see. And that ERV's screw up the mechanism that used to allow people to live longer. They disrupt the flow of genetic information.

Dumb ass ideas of Evolution from fish to human will be eradicated as well, as the tools will prove this as false, crude religious beliefs.

Lulz, might wanna go talk to the geneticists who already identified the cause of aging in the genome

Quote:

I have already written computer programs that strongly show and produce evidence that there is no random in the universe.

Can I have the source code? That sounds impossibly fascinating!


Quote:

The only limitation is the computer and the accuracy of the data.

 

What data?


Quote:

That can only change as technology increases.  The software works about 80% of the time, and the data is only so accurate that I use.

 

How do you quantify "working". Especially when you'd have to look everywhere in the universe to very your assertions. Absolute evidence is necessary for real truth otherwise you're deluded.


Quote:

As computers become more sophisticated and the accuracy of the data is tighter and more precise, it will eliminate gamboling and the lottery, because the lottery would go bust if only scientists with this program were to win.  It uses the principle that all things in the universe are connected, which is a scientific principle, from the big bang theory.

So programs will be able to predict which ping-pong balls will get sucked up a vacuum tube?


Quote:

You think you live in modern times, but in 1000 years you will be thought of as an idiot who was living in the dark ages, believing in garbage science.

I DO live in modern times. That's the definition of Modern. Oh, well before the scientists took it a perverted it. DAMN THEM!


Quote:

Just like we know that bleeding people to rid them of disease was not science now.  However, all the "physicians" of those ages all believed they were modern and using the most advanced techniques that could ever be possible. You are no different. You are wallowing around in fantasy beliefs and retarded because of it.

By this standard humanity will never ever really know anything. That's a little pessimistic and a lot wrong.


Quote:

In 1000 years I predict that people will only die when they are tired of living, because the cause of old age and death will be removed by science.

 

What about getting hit by a hovering jetson car? That'd kill ya maybe?


Quote:

I hypothesize that the cause of old age and death is in the next level down from the DNA that we can see. And that ERV's screw up the mechanism that used to allow people to live longer. They disrupt the flow of genetic information.

And this has WHAT to do with randomness? What is this "next level down"?


Quote:

Dumb ass ideas of Evolution from fish to human will be eradicated as well, as the tools will prove this as false, crude religious beliefs.

You fear what you don't understand. You don't understand evolution.

I'd quite like a peak at this source code too actually. My formal training was computer science (actually maths and computer science) to degree level, and I have several friends who work for software companies who would be tremendously interested in such a program.

I haven't the faintest inkling what it's supposed to show though.

can you give us some indiction of input data?

Where is the source code you liar?

oh_noes wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 2:56pm:

Lulz, might wanna go talk to the geneticists who already identified the cause of aging in the genome

They do not know the cause.  Are you an idiot? They see the DNA but have no idea what makes it work.

Where is the source code you liar?

The source code is what you can't see.

We know that random is not a physical possibility.

We know that because there is no way possible for DNA to be random, without instant death, that this DNA comes from coding information passed on from the parents to the offspring.
There is ABSOLUTELY no other way for this DNA to be functional and not kill or just stop life from occurring at all in offspring.

DNA can never be the cause of itself.  This is a law of physics.  Just as you are not the cause of yourself.

Anything that has physical existence is not the cause of itself.

So, you believe in fairy tales of utter logical fallacies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaUEAkqhMY

Now, why don't you subject your DNA to random changes?

Anyone who has ever programmed computers, knows that one "letter" off in the code will cause it to fail. The computer will lock up and have to be rebooted.
I know because I have had the horrible problem of finding that one letter in the programming that caused programs to lock up.  I have had to have other programmers look at it to see if they can see it.  All you need is one "if" "then" code to be off one letter and it stops.
How the hell do you think the human organism can stand to have random coding?

LMAO
Your actually using Berlinski as evidence :D

Oh dear. You really are a creo in disguise aren't you. Probably going to claim he isn't religious too, while ignoring his connections to the DI.

oh, and err.

That video is just mathodelusionist nonsense, take off your blinkers and you will see the truth.
Mathodelusionist nonsense has lied to you and closed your mind.

* locks the thread.

Oh, as for subjecting my DNA to random changes, I did, when I was born. About 150 of them. My DNA seems to have arranged itself perfectly adequatly in order to expose your nonsense time and again.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 11:41am:

Oh, as for subjecting my DNA to random changes, I did, when I was born. About 150 of them. My DNA seems to have arranged itself perfectly adequatly in order to expose your nonsense time and again.

I feel sorry for you.   I really hope you can get free of this extreme limitation on your intelligence. 

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 11:41am:

* 5F586F5E5F554301300 locks the thread.

I don't always agree with his approach, but this one is good.

Random is not even a scientific possibility.  And you believe in it, because without this fairy tale belief your whole BS theory falls apart fast.

If you were to examine every premise buy the scientific method, the whole thing falls apart.

That is why you are a coward to expose your beliefs in public.

---

Can you point to any post, in any thread, from any account, in which I have said true randomness exists in the world?
Anywhere, at any time?

You are deluded to the point where you think I have said things I have not.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 1:27pm:

Can you point to any post, in any thread, from any account, in which I have said true randomness exists in the world? Anywhere, at any time? You are deluded to the point where you think I have said things I have not.

Are you starting to wake up?  How much does it take to get you into reality?

There is no random, no apparent random, " Religious visions" of random either.  There is only cause and effects and structures in genetics that are passed down.
The only thing that is obvious is a need to survive in creatures, not a need to evolve. All I have ever seen in all the "studies" which are not based on scientific inquiry is creatures needing to survive, so they make adaptations in order to do that. When they can no longer survive as that creature, that genetic structure, they go extinct.  That is a law shown in all the evidence.  There is no such thing as genetic instability.  There is only genetic structures that vary from creature to creature based on the make up of the creature and the environment.

Nothing is the cause of itself.

DNA coding has a cause and it is not some dumb ass belief in random mutations.  Only an idiot would believe such crap that goes against the laws of science.

What word describes my perception of a process for which I currently cannot determine the outcome?

Perhaps I should have phrased that as "cannot discern a pattern from the observed outcomes."

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 4:28pm:

What word describes my perception of a process for which I currently cannot determine the outcome?

Unknown!  Educated?  Did you go to college?
;D ::)

I think you are looking in the wrong place for your education and information. 

---

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 5:01pm:

Perhaps I should have phrased that as "cannot discern a pattern from the observed outcomes."

Unknown to you! So, don't project your unproven beliefs on it. ;D :D

LMAO.

Ok, then I will henceforth refer to random mutation as "unknown mutation".

Now, go answer all the posts where we referenced random mutation, but substitute "unknown mutation".

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 5:56pm:

LMAO. Ok, then I will henceforth refer to random mutation as "unknown mutation". Now, go answer all the posts where we referenced random mutation, but substitute "unknown mutation".

You cannot call it a "mutation" either.  You cannot prove that it is any different than one of the ancestor's genetic DNA coding.  You have nothing to go on except it is "different" and you can't even call it "changed", because that implies that you know it a change from the genealogy of the parents.

Implication and projection of belief is not allowed on any evidence. It is a law of science and scientific inquiry.

If you don't know ADMIT IT!

It doesn't matter if the mutation was present in an ancestor. If it was not present in a parent, but is present in the offspring, it is a mutation of the parents DNA, unless you can provide a mechanism for base pairs to be passed on without being in the parents genome.

The offsprings DNA is made up of a combination of the parents DNA, plus 150 differences. Those differnces are mutations, by definition. It doesn't matter if they were present in an ancestor, it's irrelevant.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 6:12pm:

It doesn't matter if the mutation was present in an ancestor. If it was not present in a parent, but is present in the offspring, it is a mutation of the parents DNA, unless you can provide a mechanism for base pairs to be passed on without being in the parents genome. The offsprings DNA is made up of a combination of the parents DNA, plus 150 differences. Those differnces are mutations, by definition. It doesn't matter if they were present in an ancestor, it's irrelevant.

You don't seem to understand the obvious.

You cannot CANNOT make any implications on evolution if there is not proof of changes from the parents DNA lineage.

It is absolutely impossible for DNA to be random and there is no way to prove and "changes" unless you look back in the DNA of all the ancestors. 

So it is not random and it is not mutations.   It cannot be random and you have no idea the cause of the differences.

That is all you know.  Anything else is crap.
Therefore there is absolutely no evidence of evolution in DNA.

There seems to be an apparent stability of the genetics of all species.  If you look at the DNA down the line after the creature has lived for a while, there are minor adjustments to the environment, and beyond that they don't go any farther away from the whole of the genealogy. If they are forced to adapt to environments that they can't survive in they die out. That is why all you see is dead ends in the fossil record.

Therefore there is no such thing as Evolution. It is a fantasy.

No creature has ever broken the boundaries of their genetics. They remain the same basic creature or go extinct.

So we can add branching hierachies to the list of things you don't get. Fair enough

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 6:53pm:

So we can add branching hierachies to the list of things you don't get. Fair enough

You can only classify that which is living or you have DNA evidence on.
You cannot classify fossils with no DNA. That is ridiculous.

And any classification has to be verified by at least 100 people with no false evolution beliefs imposed on creatures.

That means; the whole thing has to be scratched and redone with absolute, scientific, real evidence and no opinions.

The nested "hierachies" of creatures you have no evidence on is fraud. ;D

Quote:

You can only classify that which is living or you have DNA evidence on. You cannot classify fossils with no DNA. That is ridiculous. And any classification has to be verified by at least 100 people with no false evolution beliefs imposed on creatures. That means; the whole thing has to be scratched and redone with absolute, scientific, real evidence and no opinions. The nested "hierachies" of creatures you have no evidence on is fraud. Grin

What does any of this have to do with randomness?

Listen to me VERY CAREFULLY!
I believe that nothing can escape causality.
I am confident that the universe is deterministic. DNA replication differences are not random. They have causes.
Sometimes it is highly reactive chemicals.
Sometimes it is radiation.
Sometimes organelles bump the DNA polymerase.
Many other causes are possible, and DO happen.
It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that DNA replication IS imperfect because of these causes.
It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that the sequence of DNA a parent gives to a child will contain differences.
It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that these changes to DNA can happen WITHOUT negative effects on the organism.
It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that these changes can confer POSITIVE attributes in the organism.
These FACTS are documented.
They are indisputable.
You will not be successful in producing evidence to the contrary because it does not exist.

wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 10:11pm:

Quote: You can only classify that which is living or you have DNA evidence on. You cannot classify fossils with no DNA. That is ridiculous. And any classification has to be verified by at least 100 people with no false evolution beliefs imposed on creatures. That means; the whole thing has to be scratched and redone with absolute, scientific, real evidence and no opinions. The nested "hierachies" of creatures you have no evidence on is fraud. Grin What does any of this have to do with randomness? Listen to me VERY CAREFULLY! I believe that nothing can escape causality. I am confident that the universe is deterministic. DNA replication differences are not random. They have causes. Sometimes it is highly reactive chemicals. Sometimes it is radiation. Sometimes organelles bump the DNA polymerase. Many other causes are possible, and DO happen. It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that DNA replication IS imperfect because of these causes. It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that the sequence of DNA a parent gives to a child will contain differences. It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that these changes to DNA can happen WITHOUT negative effects on the organism. It is a documented well-known scientific FACT that these changes can confer POSITIVE attributes in the organism. These FACTS are documented. They are indisputable. You will not be successful in producing evidence to the contrary because it does not exist.

So, you finally recognize that you have no clue how these differences occur and you are not going to research them, because it would mess up the belief in evolution, which is utter nonsense with no evidence.

Every thing you stated is opinions, from people who are guessing.

Any sort of random scrambling will kill.

By the way I know all of that.  That is why, there can be no random events in the DNA, they are cause and effect.

DNA is not the cause of DNA in the offspring, it is a result of deeper programming that is obvious.  Otherwise no continued reproduction is possible.

I would much prefer that you not use the word "change" or "changes"  because you have no way to know if they are changes. They are "differences".

---

I would much prefer that you not use the word "change" or "changes"  because you have no way to know if they are changes from the genealogy of the parents. They are "differences".

Injecting poisons in the body, will cause screwed up DNA expression.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 6:53pm: So we can add branching hierachies to the list of things you don't get. Fair enough You can only classify that which is living or you have DNA evidence on. You cannot classify fossils with no DNA. That is ridiculous.

Comparative anatommy? Geographical distribution? Position in strata? That's at least three ways of classifying fossils that have precisely nothing to do with DNA, flusing your assertions straight down the toilet. Linnean taxonomy was based entirely on comparative anatomy.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:

And any classification has to be verified by at least 100 people with no false evolution beliefs imposed on creatures.

1568 taxonomists disagreed with this statement when I asked them. I can make numbers up too.

Define Random.

wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 9:44am:

Define Random.

Random is this idea that things are chaotic; when they are not.
It is a fantasy word, used by humans who are feeble minded and cannot see all that is happening at one moment so they came up with this BS idea that there is no order to life. 

It is simply a term used to make up for the inadequacies of the human mind, because people are fearful of things they don't understand.

Get it?

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 4:40am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 9:11pm: oh_noes wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 6:53pm: So we can add branching hierachies to the list of things you don't get. Fair enough You can only classify that which is living or you have DNA evidence on. You cannot classify fossils with no DNA. That is ridiculous. Comparative anatommy? Geographical distribution? Position in strata? That's at least three ways of classifying fossils that have precisely nothing to do with DNA, flusing your assertions straight down the toilet. Linnean taxonomy was based entirely on comparative anatomy. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 12th, 2009 at 9:11pm: And any classification has to be verified by at least 100 people with no false evolution beliefs imposed on creatures. 1568 taxonomists disagreed with this statement when I asked them. I can make numbers up too.

None of them have any empirical evidence to back up their beliefs. That is why I am the imposer of scientific laws on this crap.
You have to have repeatable and testable evidence, not some evaluation by dumb ass believers.  You can never impose your beliefs on evidence, and you need to think a lot deeper on these things.
You are still clinging on to fantasy.  Let go and start thinking for yourself. What absolute evidence do you have about evolution?

You can NEVER believe any human until you prove to yourself, with absolute evidence, that what they believe is absolutely true.  People are full of agendas, been brainwashed from the day they were born, and you want to trust them for only one reason; because you want to believe them and are attracted to this idea.  You have to examine yourself and how you got this belief. Then go and remove all beliefs from your mind that are not founded in reality. 

If you want to be free, be free. Go with the laws of science and not some religious garbage belief system.

ran·dom  (rndm)
adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

I don't see your definition anywhere.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

ran·dom  (rndm) adj. 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance. 2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. I don't see your definition anywhere.

The definition is exactly what I said.

There is no such thing as random.   Humans make up words like this all the time; like "evolution", is a made up word having no basis in reality, because people are feeble minded and believe in fantasy all the time.

When you work from the level of no lies, and only truth and only follow the laws of science, you do not allow any crap words to mean anything to you.  This is what I do.  I test everything, to see if it has any association with the truth or reality. Anything that violates the laws of science is not true. Random is a fantasy word and cannot be incorporated by the laws of physics.

It is possible to learn all that humanity has to offer and not believe any of it, including definitions, until it is absolutely proven to you.

Now, I want you to prove "evolution", "random", right now.

I want you to get with the program of coming into reality and the truth about human garbage beliefs that keep them ignorant of what is right in front of their noses.

If you want to stop "filtering" reality with human emotional mental garbage beliefs, like having faith in humanity, scientists in your HEMG case. 

Humanity consists of messed, imperfect, emotionally driven, full of brainwashed agendas,  people.  I have never met a perfect human, yet.   The ONLY way to be human is to be imperfect.  You can see this in the friggin DNA for crying out loud.  That is evidence of human frailty and dysfunction.

Go take a psych test and tell me if you are perfect. When the psychologist tested me, he said I have a high opinion of myself and the highest IQ he had ever seen or hear of. 

I spent 17 years in yoga and meditation to get rid of as many delusions as possible and still working on more, but not relating to the physical world of science.  Following the laws of science is a path towards the truth.  It is my path. It is what I do.  It is called getting free of the dyanam bandaha.  Human beliefs that cause ignorance and bondage.

Most people want you to be just as stupid as them (it is some sort of law) . They want you to perpetuate their screwed up beliefs.  If you like being a pawn of delusional beliefs, that is your problem.  I could never allow crap beliefs to control me.

Those who seek the truth are able to see, their own dysfunctions and step away from them.  You have to be able to confront your delusional beliefs, let go of them and move on.

The laws of science are a good tool to get free of HEMG.

Yet you want to make scientists, into your god?  Are you nuts?  Why would you want to be the parrot of these dysfunctional people.  Go seek the truth instead of religious bovine crap.

If you seek the "truth" from the messed up humans who have violated your innocence and trust, then you are going to victimize other children the same way you have been victimized. The ego has a way of doing that.  It is a law of psychology.  Child molesters will grow up to molest children.
Messed up religious people do the same thing.  Evodelusion is a religion for fact, no different than any I have studied, except that it hides under the name "science".


Never in all of history has mankind proven itself capable of doing the right thing.  Humanity has this thing of dividing themselves into factions of belief.  All that division causes is  the opposite of peace and love or anything that gives them satisfaction. They hold on to HEMG beliefs as if it will save them from death or some such crap.   

Human beliefs not based on any reality, is the foundation of the dysfunction. Beliefs based on NOTHING are the feculence of society that takes you far from the truth on anything.


Never believe anyone, until you prove what they say is even rational.

If you seek the truth, you will eventually find it.  You have to start by being absolutely honest with yourself and all those around you. Start with simple truths, then work up to the big ones.

Humans are messed up. That is a simple truth you need to realize. If you put your faith and trust in humans and not in yourself and your own ability to recognize the truth, then you wind up believing in garbage.

A truth teacher will always tell you to find your own truth, and not take on the "truths" of others.

I don't really have much hope for you, since you started out by lying to me on this forum. Hope springs eternal. Where there is life there is hope.

You need a lot of help getting free of delusional human garbage beliefs.

Now, I want you to prove "evolution", "random", right now.

Identify a single scientific paper that deals with proof, or accept that proof has no part of science and you are talking out of your arse, again.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 1:21pm:

Now, I want you to prove "evolution", "random", right now. Identify a single scientific paper that deals with proof, or accept that proof has no part of science and you are talking out of your arse, again.

You are nuts. Get with the program.

If you want to indoctrinate someone into a religious belief and make out like it is "science", because your job depends on it, then you take "science" and make it fit your beliefs.
You tell the new indoctrinees that "science does not require any physical evidence, or proof", that the "highest truth" is a frigging human garbage theory and then you remove the possibility for the student ever seeking the truth.  These children are gullible and victims of this bovine garbage. You are one of them.
Then you teach them that they cannot allow any evidence that would spoil the faith in this "theory". They must not ever listen to anyone but "real scientists" because we know the "truth". This is the definition of a cult, by the way.

Teach them that "falisifcation" is a science thing, when it is used in cults all the time.  You cannot falsify anything that has no evidence, like a cult religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_5CJzKB9b4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4--Frypeg00


They tell you how to think and how to believe then make up definitions of what science is and you allow them to do this to you.

You are very gullible and fell for this HEMG.

I go with the old scientific method that was around before this politically driven HEMG took over science.
Seeking the truth of the matter is the only real science.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 1:38pm:

You are nuts. Get with the program. If you want to indoctrinate someone into a religious belief and make out like it is "science", because your job depends on it, then you take "science" and make it fit your beliefs.

That, my friend, sums up your position entirely. You demand proof, but can't show any aspect of science that has ever dealt with proof. In other words, you have twisted science to fit your own belief.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 1:42pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 13th, 2009 at 1:38pm: You are nuts. Get with the program. If you want to indoctrinate someone into a religious belief and make out like it is "science", because your job depends on it, then you take "science" and make it fit your beliefs. That, my friend, sums up your position entirely. You demand proof, but can't show any aspect of science that has ever dealt with proof. In other words, you have twisted science to fit your own belief.

You are a true Evodelusionist, completly lost in garbage.

You are really a wast of my time.

Answer me this. If you can't demonstrate a single instance of science, ever, that has ever dealt with proof, why would I listen to you telling me that science does deal with proof?

If you are the only one talking about proof in the entire scientific community the only conclusion I can draw is that you are wrong.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 2:52pm:

Answer me this. If you can't demonstrate a single instance of science, ever, that has ever dealt with proof, why would I listen to you telling me that science does deal with proof? If you are the only one talking about proof in the entire scientific community the only conclusion I can draw is that you are wrong.

This is where you get what you asked for.

1/ Remove all clothing from your feet. Take a cigarette lighter, and light it.  Place it on the bottom of your foot for at least 1 minute. Tell me the absolute evidence you found?

2/ Stand in the vicinity of an atomic blast and tell me the results of that empirical test?

3/ Take vinegar and mix it with baking soda. Tell me the absolute results of this experiment.

4/ Place a pan of water on the stove. Let it boil. Take a tea bag and put it in a cup.  Pour the boiling water on the tea bag and fill the cup. What is the results of this experiment?

You are an idiot. You do not know what absolute empirical evidence its.

You have been taught how to believe in fairy tales, and all the logic and reason has been removed and replaced with fantasy.

Anyone who actually believes in evolution can only believe it by having the ability to understand the obvious removed from their brains.  You let this happen to you.

---

So in other words, the only person dealing with proof in science, is you :D

How revealing.

If you had any self respect, you would go to those weak humans who did this to you and demand proof of their beliefs.

That is what I do. Any not one of them has any proof to back up any of there crap beliefs.

Why do you believe someone or anyone or any group of pseudo scientists,  who has no evidence and only makes up garbage to fit a dumb ass belief?
This is the hole where their beliefs come from.

---

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 3:29pm:

So in other words, the only person dealing with proof in science, is you :D How revealing.

You actually are that stupid, that you would let them do this to  you?

Since it is necessary to rest on the axiom that reality exists, it is impossible to prove anything about reality.

Proof can exist within well defined axioms, but it does not equate to proof about reality since the axioms of reality cannot be examined.

I didn't let anyone do this to me. I thought about it. You are yet to show me how proof of anything is possible. Nothing can be proven in science, since it must rest on the axiom that reality exists.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 3:44pm:

Since it is necessary to rest on the axiom that reality exists, it is impossible to prove anything about reality. Proof can exist within well defined axioms, but it does not equate to proof about reality since the axioms of reality cannot be examined. I didn't let anyone do this to me. I thought about it. You are yet to show me how proof of anything is possible. Nothing can be proven in science, since it must rest on the axiom that reality exists.

The Truth is always self evident.

You are brainwashed out of rational thoughts and logic.

This is the same garbage they teach every student in order to get them to stop testing their bovine garbage and conform.

You are weak, so you cave into the bovine and conform.

The truth is self-evident? Better go and tell Copernicus and Gallileo that they were superfluous to requirements.

Randomness in DNA does not kill a person, and I can prove it!

Take two identical twins. We get identical twins when a zygote splits into two embryos, and so they have exactly the same DNA. We can look at the DNA and verify that they are exactly the same.

However, once in a while they might end up with different DNA - a mutation, and we can look at their DNA and verify that their DNA are not exactly the same. This has been done and it is completely documented.

Randomness in the real world do exist. This has nothing to do with "seemingly random", because that is something else. That has to do with how complex a system is.

metha wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 5:59pm:

Randomness in DNA does not kill a person, and I can prove it! Take two identical twins. We get identical twins when a zygote splits into two embryos, and so they have exactly the same DNA. We can look at the DNA and verify that they are exactly the same. However, once in a while they might end up with different DNA - a mutation, and we can look at their DNA and verify that their DNA are not exactly the same. This has been done and it is completely documented.

Nothing in "REALITY" is random. It is cause and effect.

You do not know the cause, so you call it random.

It is a human weakness to use such silly words, because humans are feeble minded, and will project belief and ideas on things they know nothing about.  It is a huge problem for humans and it keeps them down, keep them ignorant, and causes all sorts of ridiculous concepts, like evodelusionism.

I personally don't accept anything that is not absolutely proven.  That is why I am sane.  I was tested sane, with no mental problems and I have an IQ over 180.

If you chose to believe things that have never been absolutely proven to you, then you live in fantasy.

The differences in twins is not some random "accident". 

If you believe this then lets subject a hundred of so of your DNA base pairs to scrambling and see how long you live.

How well would you do if your liver turned into slime, or your eyes started growing out of their sockets, or you have a huge hole in your bowels?

Think about this. It is against the laws of physics to have random changes to an organic structure.  Everything is cause and effect.
If they live as an organized life form, then the DNA is not random.  It is organized by the laws of science.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 7:11pm:

You do not know the cause, so you call it random.

No, that is "seamingly random", or the same as complexity.



Quote:

I personally don't accept anything that is not absolutely proven.  That is why I am sane.  I was tested sane, with no mental problems and I have an IQ over 180.

That is cool. I was also tested with an IQ of 192. First we were tested with a test that went to 144, but I was sent to Switzerland for further testing. Maybe I can have a nice discussion with you.



Quote:

The differences in twins is not some random "accident".

How? 



Quote:

How well would you do if your liver turned into slime, or your eyes started growing out of their sockets, or you have a huge hole in your bowels?

Oo, that would be awful.



Quote:

Think about this. It is against the laws of physics to have random changes to an organic structure.  Everything is cause and effect.

Why is that against the law of physics?

However, I agree with you that evolution isn't true. I just don't agree with you on randomness and twins. I think that alterations in DNA can happen without changes to the phenotype. I believe things popped into existence somehow. Would like to discuss som issues about disproving the theory sometime.

metha wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 7:25pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 13th, 2009 at 7:11pm: You do not know the cause, so you call it random. No, that is "seamingly random", or the same as complexity. Quote: I personally don't accept anything that is not absolutely proven.  That is why I am sane.  I was tested sane, with no mental problems and I have an IQ over 180. That is cool. I was also tested with an IQ of 192. First we were tested with a test that went to 144, but I was sent to Switzerland for further testing. Maybe I can have a nice discussion with you. [quote]The differences in twins is not some random "accident".

How? 



Quote:

How well would you do if your liver turned into slime, or your eyes started growing out of their sockets, or you have a huge hole in your bowels?

Oo, that would be awful.



Quote:

Think about this. It is against the laws of physics to have random changes to an organic structure.  Everything is cause and effect.

Why is that against the law of physics?

However, I agree with you that evolution isn't true. I just don't agree with you on randomness and twins. I think that alterations in DNA can happen without changes to the phenotype. I believe things popped into existence somehow. Would like to discuss som issues about disproving the theory sometime.[/quote]

There is no such thing as seemingly random, apparently random, or "complexity" random.

There is no random in the universe, there is only cause and effect. 

Nothing is the cause of itself.

If you can see one event that causes another, then you know there is no random.

If you can see ten events that all have results, then there is no random. 

If you can see the cause of 100 events and the results then you know there is no random.

If you can see a billion events and look at each one by the laws of physics you know there is no random.

There is only cause and effect. Random does not exist.

It is because of the feebleness of the human mind (average human mind) that crap like randomness becomes a religious belief.  All religious beliefs need to be removed from science.

There is no such thing as "random mutations" in DNA. They are neither "random" nor are the "mutations" until you can prove there is no creature in the genealogy with that DNA pattern. Random DNA is death. There is no other possibility.
If one mistake in a DNA base pare can cause severe illness, then 100 or more is certain death.


DNA is not the cause of itself. Nothing is the cause of itself in physical forms.

When you say you "see" apparent random, when you have no idea what the cause is, only shows ignorance of the laws of science that hold the universe together.

There are no magical or mystical causes in this world. But because humans do not have the tools to see all the causes, with their feeble minds, they make up mystical and magical reasons that violate the laws of science.

If you allow magical causes in your mind an accept them, it retards you.  If you are not seeking the truth, and recognized your own human limitations, then you start filling in the blanks with fantasy, beliefs.  It is a human problem to make up religious reasons for events they don't understand.

In the case of Evolution (Evodelusion religion) they make up stories of mystical processes, and magical reasons, base on mythological HEMG.

I just disagree with randomness here. We can demonstrate randomness by preparing an electron in some state. Let's say we position it by a vector in space, and we want to measure in which state the electron is in by observing it when we position it pointing upwards. Since you're a scientist, you know that an electron emits a quantum or it doesn't, and if it points down, it will emit a quantum, but if it  points up it will not. But if it points in any other direction, it may happen that it emits a quantum, but it also may not. How do we know that this is random? Well, we test it for example by preparing the electron pi/2 radians from the top and measure. Then we can observe that it emits a quantum with probability exactly 1/2. No matter what, we can measure again and again, knowing that the conditions are exactly the same each time, but still we get a probability of 1/2. Sometimes it emits, sometimes it doesn't.

I am not saying that DNA mutation is random, but I say that randomness exists in the universe. Besides, we have free will.

Seemingly random is complexity. It is seemingly random to us, because we can't predict it because it is too complex. But in theory we could predict it.

Evodelusion. Great name by the way  :D

Quote:

Besides, we have free will.

Whoa whoa.. define "free will".

metha wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 1:23am:

I just disagree with randomness here. We can demonstrate randomness by preparing an electron in some state. Let's say we position it by a vector in space, and we want to measure in which state the electron is in by observing it when we position it pointing upwards. Since you're a scientist, you know that an electron emits a quantum or it doesn't, and if it points down, it will emit a quantum, but if it  points up it will not. But if it points in any other direction, it may happen that it emits a quantum, but it also may not. How do we know that this is random? Well, we test it for example by preparing the electron pi/2 radians from the top and measure. Then we can observe that it emits a quantum with probability exactly 1/2. No matter what, we can measure again and again, knowing that the conditions are exactly the same each time, but still we get a probability of 1/2. Sometimes it emits, sometimes it doesn't. I am not saying that DNA mutation is random, but I say that randomness exists in the universe. Besides, we have free will. Seemingly random is complexity. It is seemingly random to us, because we can't predict it because it is too complex. But in theory we could predict it. Evodelusion. Great name by the way  :D

Once again, because you cannot control the conditions that create the apparent random, does not equal random.  It is caused and you witness the effects.

This is exactly the same as the "flipping the coin" illustration.
After you can see the cause of the coins movements you can predict the outcome.  If you don't know the cause, you use the term "random" which implies mystical causes. There are no mystical causes.

There are causes that humans are not aware of because of the tools they have.  With each new tool, we are able to see deeper into the levels of science.
Are you aware of the physicists tests on turning energy into mass?

http://www.physorg.com/news146415074.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYftcP0kR2mf032kK3WFVR9k_O2A

Metha quoted [quote]
However, once in a while they might end up with different DNA - a mutation, and we can look at their DNA and verify that their DNA are not exactly the same. This has been done and it is completely documented.[?quote]

Any changes to DNA has a cause.  You can't see it! So why do you want to contribute it to mystical causes?
If you project what you think you see or what you were taught on evidence, it is not objective science.

Why do you believe in random?   Can you prove random beyond all doubts?

Quote:

Any changes to DNA has a cause.  You can't see it! So why do you want to contribute it to mystical causes? If you project what you think you see or what you were taught on evidence, it is not objective science. Why do you believe in random?   Can you prove random beyond all doubts?

Strawman. Move on.

So in conclusion, random is a mystical cause and has no basis in science.  PERIOD.

Anyone who's mind is so limited as to believe in mystical causes and magical processes, is not a scientist, but a religious fanatic.  This is a photo of what it looks like. Below and a video make about these stupid Straw Man arguments from people who have been trained out of logic and reason, by society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1qruCbFIA

---

Can you idenfity a single scientist who you respect, alive today, publishing science?

oh_noes wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 4:07pm:

Can you idenfity a single scientist who you respect, alive today, publishing science?

Whom. 

Berlinski, has some ideas, but still has beliefs to deal with.

Mostly I have respect for physicists who are actually doing science as the articles I just posted today.
Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics.

When I was 6 years old, I saw a bomb blast in Nevada. Driving though on our way from Arizona to California.  It was in the early morning. We were in a 1942  Pontiac two door coupe. I was riding in the back on top of a pile of belongings.
The whole sky lit up like daylight.  It was friggin amazing.
It was this that got me interested in atomic theory.

---

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 7:21pm:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 14th, 2009 at 4:07pm: Can you idenfity a single scientist who you respect, alive today, publishing science? Whom.  Berlinski, has some ideas, but still has beliefs to deal with. Mostly I have respect for physicists who are actually doing science as the articles I just posted today. Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics. When I was 6 years old, I saw a bomb blast in Nevada. Driving though on our way from Arizona to California.  It was in the early morning. We were in a 1942  Pontiac two door coupe. I was riding in the back on top of a pile of belongings. The whole sky lit up like daylight.  It was friggin amazing. It was this that got me interested in atomic theory.

Well, I asked that question so as to get some appreciation for what you might actually accept as evidence, some understanding of where you sit. Now I'm just confused. Let me illustrate.

After discussing "absolute proof" constantly, and in nearly every thread, your two respected scientists are a theoretical physicist and a denier of reality sponsored by a religions organisation, whose speciality when the faith blinkers are removed is actually maths? Which aspect of theoretical physics is conducive to absolute proof?

Anyway, just for a giggle, guess what I did. I researched monsieur Lellouch, it would seem that he has no problem with the term random. How do I know? Because he uses it in his peer reviewed publications.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-lat/9909026
Chiral symmetry breaking from Ginsparg-Wilson fermions: Pilar Hernándesa, †, Karl Jansena, † and Laurent Lellouch

Note the discussion on random matrix theory (I don't actually know what that is btw).

I have no problem with him btw, he looks like a credible scientist doing excellent work.

Onto Berlinski, and I'm sorry but you just have to be kidding. Firstly, I asked for a scientist who is actually publishing work. Well, do a search in google scholar for articles published in the last 20 years and see what you find. I'll save you the trouble, click the link
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=20&q=author:David+author:Berlinski&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=1990&as_yhi=2009

There isn't a single science article in that period. Not one. There are a couple of commentaries and one example of lecture notes. Maths is Berlinski's forte.

Maybe you will surprise me and link to something I haven't found, but for now I'm just amused.

As an aside, I really hope your "whom", starting the post, wasn't mocking my typo, because if it was I'll have a field day with you.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 1:59pm:

Once again, because you cannot control the conditions that create the apparent random, does not equal random.  It is caused and you witness the effects.

Yes, you can, that is the whole point. One prepares an electron, exactly in a particular position, and it is staggering that it emits a quantum with probability exactly 1/2 each and every time this is being done. Why is that? It is because it is completely random. Or else one would have to explain why it is always with probability 1/2. Because if there were other factors influencing this "not random" process, one had to explain why on earth it always happens with a probability of exactly 1/2.

But that's not all. There is more. Say you prepare the electron again, not with pi/2 radians but in any position and make the same measure. What happens? Does it emit a quantum? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but always with a certain probability, say this time with probability 1/5. Why can we always predict this probability if this is just a matter of factors that we are not aware of and cannot control. Why would the electron never emit a quantum if I prepared the electron up and measure it up. Why would the electron always emit a quantum if I prepared the electron down and measure it up? Why doesn't these outer "factors" influence the outcome then? And why can we always predict the probability before we start, if there are just some outer factors that makes us "believe" it is random when it is not? It doesn't matter if I use the same electron again and again or if I look at different electrons (on the other side of the earth) when I measure, it will always emit a quantum with a predictable probability. So hence each measurement doesn't influence the next measurements, so that can not be one of the "factors" influencing the outcomes.

This is obviously probabilistic, which classical physics is not.

I think I just gave enough evidence for randomness.


Quote:

This is exactly the same as the "flipping the coin" illustration. After you can see the cause of the coins movements you can predict the outcome.

No preparing an electron in a position is not the same as coin flipping. And as I said before, the probability is a continuous function on the position of the vector. The electron has two states, but emits a quantum with a controlled probability. Einstein also agreed to this.



Quote:

Are you aware of the physicists tests on turning energy into mass?

I have studied relativity theory, so let's talk about it if you want.



Quote:

Any changes to DNA has a cause.  You can't see it! So why do you want to contribute it to mystical causes?

DNA changes doesn't exist. That is a stupid belief by people who denies God. I said changes could happen in DNA, like in with the twins, but I never said they were random. Life is different, and it isn't my fault that some people believe evolution and denies God. I am not ashamed to say that I think there is some more behind the universe, and I am not afraid to say that I believe in random things, because I think we have free will.

One question at the end. Do you know LaTex code so that I can start a thread on debunking evolution with information theory in another thread? I have no idea how to do it without LaTex, but I guess you know it? Or is that a problem? You have any thoughts on the problems with information in DNA and evolution?

Quote:

Anyone who has ever programmed computers, knows that one "letter" off in the code will cause it to fail. The computer will lock up and have to be rebooted. I know because I have had the horrible problem of finding that one letter in the programming that caused programs to lock up.  I have had to have other programmers look at it to see if they can see it.  All you need is one "if" "then" code to be off one letter and it stops.

No, it would simply not compile at all. You are describing a syntax error, and the compiler would stop compiling when the error is discovered.

Of course one can predict a coin toss after the coin has lifted from the thumb. But can one predict the toss before the human flipped the coin, and before the coin leaves the thumb? No, it is the human factor that is the source to randomness here, not the outer factors influencing the coin in the air.

Quote:

Anyone who has ever programmed computers, knows that one "letter" off in the code will cause it to fail. The computer will lock up and have to be rebooted.

Or alternatively, a new and unexpected behaviour might result, as indeed is guaranteed to happen if the new code can be read. And of course with DNA all we are dealing with are amino acids, we know they can be read.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 4:55am:

Quote: Anyone who has ever programmed computers, knows that one "letter" off in the code will cause it to fail. The computer will lock up and have to be rebooted. Or alternatively, a new and unexpected behaviour might result, as indeed is guaranteed to happen if the new code can be read. And of course with DNA all we are dealing with are amino acids, we know they can be read.

Obviously you have never programmed a computer in a low level language.  I am not talking about hyper text. ;D

As it happens I was thinking in terms of coding in binary, using tape to feed into a machine. I figured it was the best analogy for DNA, since DNA consists of 4 bases in various combinations.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

As it happens I was thinking in terms of coding in binary, using tape to feed into a machine. I figured it was the best analogy for DNA, since DNA consists of 4 bases in various combinations.

Like I said, I don't think you have ever programmed a computer. 

Programmed a computer? nope, never interested in machine code. My stuff was mostly high level.

As part of my degree I coded real time systems in ADA, of all things it was a ball sorting contraption to sort plastic and steel balls into separate containers using a magnet to trigger a flipper.

I completed a module on using OpenGL, coding in C, for a helicopter flying over a fractal landscape.

I've coded in php for website front ends, in particular for accessing a hardened mysql database, a project that I completed for my University dissertation.

I have some experience hacking bash scripts together.

I am not a programmer by trade, but I have experience accross multiple operating systems and language gained throughout my time at university and for personal interest.

And not one bit of that is relevant to the discussion at hand, which is the idea that the changing of a single base pair renders DNA useless.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 10:46am:

Programmed a computer? nope, never interested in machine code. My stuff was mostly high level. As part of my degree I coded real time systems in ADA, of all things it was a ball sorting contraption to sort plastic and steel balls into separate containers using a magnet to trigger a flipper. I completed a module on using OpenGL, coding in C, for a helicopter flying over a fractal landscape. I've coded in php for website front ends, in particular for accessing a hardened mysql database, a project that I completed for my University dissertation. I have some experience hacking bash scripts together. I am not a programmer by trade, but I have experience accross multiple operating systems and language gained throughout my time at university and for personal interest. And not one bit of that is relevant to the discussion at hand, which is the idea that the changing of a single base pair renders DNA useless.

using libraries and high level programming is not the same as line by line code.  You know that.

One "letter" off and the thing will not work.  I have spent hours looking for that one letter until I find it. It can be an "i" in "if" and it locks up.   

You really think that scrambling and hundred or so base pairs of the DNA will allow life?

Like I said, why don't you have a hundred  or so of your DNA codings changed, scrambled by some guy in a lab with a blindfold on and see how long you live?  This idea is utter nonsense.

Life relies on ordered and extremely detailed instructions to live.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:16am:

You really think that scrambling and hundred or so base pairs of the DNA will allow life?

If my genome contains 150 odd differences to that of my parents it is clear that it can survive 150 changes, unless you can provide a mechanism for those "changes" to have been present in the parent DNA and passed on.

Every living person on the planet is evidence that 150 changes in the genome are not fatal, they are all walking around with them.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 10:41am:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 10:06am: As it happens I was thinking in terms of coding in binary, using tape to feed into a machine. I figured it was the best analogy for DNA, since DNA consists of 4 bases in various combinations. Like I said, I don't think you have ever programmed a computer.

"Program a computer"? What does that mean? You mean like writing BIOS software? Because he might not write low-level code, but I have... I've fiddled with microprocessors (mostly Motorola 68** series and Z80), but nowadays I stick mostly with Atmel.

I've coded enough in assembler, that I know, that you can make an oops and the "typo" can lead to unforseen consequences without locking up the computer.

While in the low-level programming you CAN make the system lock up, that's usually not the case. Usually 2 things can happen; 1) the compiler will cough out a syntax error or 2) the program will act in unexpected manner.

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:20am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:16am: You really think that scrambling and hundred or so base pairs of the DNA will allow life? If my genome contains 150 odd differences to that of my parents it is clear that it can survive 150 changes, unless you can provide a mechanism for those "changes" to have been present in the parent DNA and passed on. Every living person on the planet is evidence that 150 changes in the genome are not fatal, they are all walking around with them.

One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that.  Random is certain death for the species.

There is no such thing as random in the universe. It runs on the laws of cause and effect, therefore random is fantasy.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:27am:

One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that.

Yes, fully aware that it might. Also aware that it probably won't.


Quote:

Random is certain death for the species.

First you tell me random doesn't exist, now you tell me it's death for the species. Interesting. Is this a concession that random does exist?

And of course it's not certain death, that's a ludicrous suggestion, again every living walking breathing person serves as evidence.


Quote:

There is no such thing as random in the universe.

Oh, so random doesn't exist? So why is it deadly?


Quote:

It runs on the laws of cause and effect, therefore random is fantasy.

An irrelevance until you have the ability to predict every physical interaction in the Universe. The process can be modelled as random in the meantime.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 11:00am:

Quote: We do not have the tools to determine the outcome. EXACTLY. When this is the case we commonly call this a "random" outcome.

Not having the tools is like trying to look at bacteria with a set of jewlers magnifiers.  Until you pull out the proper tool or invent it, you have no idea the causes on things you have no way of knowing about.

There is absolutely,  ABSOLUTELY, no way for you to know the cause of any changed in DNA from the parents to the offspring in the reproductive process.  If a chemical is involved then you can see that as a cause,  BUT IT IS still a cause.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:40am:

wrote on Dec 11th, 2009 at 11:00am: Quote: We do not have the tools to determine the outcome. EXACTLY. When this is the case we commonly call this a "random" outcome. Not having the tools is like trying to look at bacteria with a set of jewlers magnifiers.  Until you pull out the proper tool or invent it, you have no idea the causes on things you have no way of knowing about. There is absolutely,  ABSOLUTELY, no way for you to know the cause of any changed in DNA from the parents to the offspring in the reproductive process.  If a chemical is involved then you can see that as a cause,  BUT IT IS still a cause.

Never said it wasn't. Interaction with some photo of radiation, a neutrino, who knows what, makes bugger all difference. Just enough to corrupt the copying process and bang, new base pair. Could happen to any one.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:27am:

One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that.  Random is certain death for the species.

No.
In most cases the mutations of DNA happen in non-coding regions. By the research conducted in 1999, there are 128 mutations per average per human zygote: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JDD-4RDPT53-F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1137021189&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=603f2a9f85007d3f1a26d77f913cd0eb

Most of the mutations occur in the non-coding regions; In humans that's ~95% of the DNA, that's why they're neutral. But some can be beneficial, and some can be detrimental.

Why do you think, that your DNA is different from your parent's?

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:31am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:27am: One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that. Yes, fully aware that it might. Also aware that it probably won't. Quote:   Random is certain death for the species. First you tell me random doesn't exist, now you tell me it's death for the species. Interesting. Is this a concession that random does exist? And of course it's not certain death, that's a ludicrous suggestion, again every living walking breathing person serves as evidence. [quote] There is no such thing as random in the universe.

Oh, so random doesn't exist? So why is it deadly?


Quote:

It runs on the laws of cause and effect, therefore random is fantasy.

An irrelevance until you have the ability to predict every physical interaction in the Universe. The process can be modelled as random in the meantime.
[/quote]

The universe is a structure that runs on the laws of science.

It cannot run on chaos.

Why are you using random for evidence then on other evidence you go ape garbage and say it is not random? You cannot have two conflicting ideas in the same science.  It must be integrated.

If random is real, then 99% of your other arguments are destroyed. 

You cannot assemble any "tree of life" if life is random.

You cannot say that "evolutionary pressure" is a cause if "random" is the cause or even a cause. 

You are brainwashed into a dumb belief system with conflicting information and conflicting data all over.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 11:45am:

oh_noes wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:31am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:27am: One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that. Yes, fully aware that it might. Also aware that it probably won't. Quote:   Random is certain death for the species. First you tell me random doesn't exist, now you tell me it's death for the species. Interesting. Is this a concession that random does exist? And of course it's not certain death, that's a ludicrous suggestion, again every living walking breathing person serves as evidence. [quote] There is no such thing as random in the universe. Oh, so random doesn't exist? So why is it deadly? [quote] It runs on the laws of cause and effect, therefore random is fantasy.

An irrelevance until you have the ability to predict every physical interaction in the Universe. The process can be modelled as random in the meantime.
[/quote]

The universe is a structure that runs on the laws of science.

It cannot run on chaos.

Why are you using random for evidence then on other evidence you go ape garbage and say it is not random? You cannot have two conflicting ideas in the same science.  It must be integrated.

If random is real, then 99% of your other arguments are destroyed. 

You cannot assemble any "tree of life" if life is random.

You cannot say that "evolutionary pressure" is a cause if "random" is the cause or even a cause. 

You are brainwashed into a dumb belief system with conflicting information and conflicting data all over.

[/quote]

I posted, at length, to explain apparent randomness. Do you just switch off and not read?

Apparently randomness is a process that appears random precisely because we do not have a complete understanding of the state of the Universe.

I can refer to the toss of a coin as being random because I am incapable of predicting it accurately. The best I can do is assign probabilities, 50:50 in the case of a coin toss. It doesn't matter that the coin toss isn't random, I can't know the starting conditions so I can treat it as such. Because I can treat it as such, I can refer to it as random.

The same applies to mutations in DNA. I can't know the starting conditions, the best I can do is give probabilities that a given base pair will get mutated. I can call it random because i don't have complete information.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

I have read all there is no this from quantum physics, and from all there is about it.
I made a detailed study of this back in 1990 and discovered that apparent random does not exist.

There is nothing but structures in the universe, right down to the smallest particals we know of.

If you smash the nucleus of cleaned up uranium, it will release the energy contained in it as it destroys the structure of the uranium.  However one the energy is released it is no longer in physical form and has no structure at all.

There is only organic structures shown in DNA, not random chaos.  If you destroy the order, it dies or becomes a sick mutant.

Apparently random is a concept, its simply the acknowledgment that I don't have all the information to hand.

Your proved it doesn't exist? LMAO. Go and bankrupt all the casinos in Vegas, they can only exist precisely because of it.

Quote:

I made a detailed study of this back in 1990 and discovered that apparent random does not exist.

Quote:

One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that.  Random is certain death for the species.

Which one is it now? The former or the later one?

glowingape wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 12:24pm:

Quote: I made a detailed study of this back in 1990 and discovered that apparent random does not exist. [quote] One piece of coding in DNA can cause severe illness. Don't you know that.  Random is certain death for the species.

Which one is it now? The former or the later one?[/quote]

I suggest that you submit your DNA for random scrambling.

Lol, so random does exist, since you are suggesting we submit to it.

Cognitive dissonance ftw

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 12:29pm:

I suggest that you submit your DNA for random scrambling.

OK. So you accept random. And what exactly would "submit your DNA for random scrambling" do?

glowingape wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 12:43pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:29pm: I suggest that you submit your DNA for random scrambling. OK. So you accept random. And what exactly would "submit your DNA for random scrambling" do?

There is only cause and effect. Random in DNA is certain death.  You cannot take something so precisely coded and even consider any random DNA.

If one pair being screwed up by one event can cause serious illness, then if you have 100 or so screwed up, it is death and only death.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:

glowingape wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:43pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:29pm: I suggest that you submit your DNA for random scrambling. OK. So you accept random. And what exactly would "submit your DNA for random scrambling" do? There is only cause and effect. Random in DNA is certain death.  You cannot take something so precisely coded and even consider any random DNA. If one pair being screwed up by one event can cause serious illness, then if you have 100 or so screwed up, it is death and only death.

You haven't answered my question. What exactly would "submit your DNA for random scrambling" do?

glowingape wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 12:24am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 4:41pm: glowingape wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:43pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:29pm: I suggest that you submit your DNA for random scrambling. OK. So you accept random. And what exactly would "submit your DNA for random scrambling" do? There is only cause and effect. Random in DNA is certain death.  You cannot take something so precisely coded and even consider any random DNA. If one pair being screwed up by one event can cause serious illness, then if you have 100 or so screwed up, it is death and only death. You haven't answered my question. What exactly would "submit your DNA for random scrambling" do?

It would turn you into a freak, then you would die.

There is no random in DNA differences. They are all caused.


No creature can survive any "random mutations" in DNA.

I think I quote my earlier post, because I think it was ignored:


metha wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 4:16am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 14th, 2009 at 1:59pm: Once again, because you cannot control the conditions that create the apparent random, does not equal random.  It is caused and you witness the effects. Yes, you can, that is the whole point. One prepares an electron, exactly in a particular position, and it is staggering that it emits a quantum with probability exactly 1/2 each and every time this is being done. Why is that? It is because it is completely random. Or else one would have to explain why it is always with probability 1/2. Because if there were other factors influencing this "not random" process, one had to explain why on earth it always happens with a probability of exactly 1/2. But that's not all. There is more. Say you prepare the electron again, not with pi/2 radians but in any position and make the same measure. What happens? Does it emit a quantum? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but always with a certain probability, say this time with probability 1/5. Why can we always predict this probability if this is just a matter of factors that we are not aware of and cannot control. Why would the electron never emit a quantum if I prepared the electron up and measure it up. Why would the electron always emit a quantum if I prepared the electron down and measure it up? Why doesn't these outer "factors" influence the outcome then? And why can we always predict the probability before we start, if there are just some outer factors that makes us "believe" it is random when it is not? It doesn't matter if I use the same electron again and again or if I look at different electrons (on the other side of the earth) when I measure, it will always emit a quantum with a predictable probability. So hence each measurement doesn't influence the next measurements, so that can not be one of the "factors" influencing the outcomes. This is obviously probabilistic, which classical physics is not. I think I just gave enough evidence for randomness. Quote: This is exactly the same as the "flipping the coin" illustration. After you can see the cause of the coins movements you can predict the outcome. No preparing an electron in a position is not the same as coin flipping. And as I said before, the probability is a continuous function on the position of the vector. The electron has two states, but emits a quantum with a controlled probability. Einstein also agreed to this. [quote]Are you aware of the physicists tests on turning energy into mass?

I have studied relativity theory, so let's talk about it if you want.



Quote:

Any changes to DNA has a cause.  You can't see it! So why do you want to contribute it to mystical causes?

DNA changes doesn't exist. That is a stupid belief by people who denies God. I said changes could happen in DNA, like in with the twins, but I never said they were random. Life is different, and it isn't my fault that some people believe evolution and denies God. I am not ashamed to say that I think there is some more behind the universe, and I am not afraid to say that I believe in random things, because I think we have free will.

One question at the end. Do you know LaTex code so that I can start a thread on debunking evolution with information theory in another thread? I have no idea how to do it without LaTex, but I guess you know it? Or is that a problem? You have any thoughts on the problems with information in DNA and evolution?[/quote]

This shows that true randomness do exist.

Apparent random also exist. There exist random generators, and with an initial seed, the generator will produce a pseudorandom sequence. I can prove that too. Give me a string consisting of the alphabet, that is 20 characters long, and predict my string. I have already written my string down, so in theory you could know about the string.

Quote:

It would turn you into a freak, then you would die.

Define "freak". We're all "freaks" within our genetic code. We're all mutants. We don't have a "perfect copy" of our parent's DNA. We have some parts of the DNA from the father, some from the mother (that's why the paternity tests actually work), and some parts are uniquely yours. And that can't be "acquired" in any other way than your body mutation.


Quote:

There is no random in DNA differences. They are all caused.

The "random" differences are all caused by translation or transcription confusion. It's as simple as mis-copying the certain sequence within the genome, nothing else.



Quote:

No creature can survive any "random mutations" in DNA.

Do I hear "I acknowledge natural selection"?

metha wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 1:54am:

I think I quote my earlier post, because I think it was ignored: metha wrote on Dec 15th, 2009 at 4:16am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 14th, 2009 at 1:59pm: Once again, because you cannot control the conditions that create the apparent random, does not equal random.  It is caused and you witness the effects. Yes, you can, that is the whole point. One prepares an electron, exactly in a particular position, and it is staggering that it emits a quantum with probability exactly 1/2 each and every time this is being done. Why is that? It is because it is completely random. Or else one would have to explain why it is always with probability 1/2. Because if there were other factors influencing this "not random" process, one had to explain why on earth it always happens with a probability of exactly 1/2. But that's not all. There is more. Say you prepare the electron again, not with pi/2 radians but in any position and make the same measure. What happens? Does it emit a quantum? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but always with a certain probability, say this time with probability 1/5. Why can we always predict this probability if this is just a matter of factors that we are not aware of and cannot control. Why would the electron never emit a quantum if I prepared the electron up and measure it up. Why would the electron always emit a quantum if I prepared the electron down and measure it up? Why doesn't these outer "factors" influence the outcome then? And why can we always predict the probability before we start, if there are just some outer factors that makes us "believe" it is random when it is not? It doesn't matter if I use the same electron again and again or if I look at different electrons (on the other side of the earth) when I measure, it will always emit a quantum with a predictable probability. So hence each measurement doesn't influence the next measurements, so that can not be one of the "factors" influencing the outcomes. This is obviously probabilistic, which classical physics is not. I think I just gave enough evidence for randomness. Quote: This is exactly the same as the "flipping the coin" illustration. After you can see the cause of the coins movements you can predict the outcome. No preparing an electron in a position is not the same as coin flipping. And as I said before, the probability is a continuous function on the position of the vector. The electron has two states, but emits a quantum with a controlled probability. Einstein also agreed to this. [quote]Are you aware of the physicists tests on turning energy into mass? I have studied relativity theory, so let's talk about it if you want. [quote]Any changes to DNA has a cause.  You can't see it! So why do you want to contribute it to mystical causes?

DNA changes doesn't exist. That is a stupid belief by people who denies God. I said changes could happen in DNA, like in with the twins, but I never said they were random. Life is different, and it isn't my fault that some people believe evolution and denies God. I am not ashamed to say that I think there is some more behind the universe, and I am not afraid to say that I believe in random things, because I think we have free will.

One question at the end. Do you know LaTex code so that I can start a thread on debunking evolution with information theory in another thread? I have no idea how to do it without LaTex, but I guess you know it? Or is that a problem? You have any thoughts on the problems with information in DNA and evolution?[/quote]

This shows that true randomness do exist.

Apparent random also exist. There exist random generators, and with an initial seed, the generator will produce a pseudorandom sequence. I can prove that too. Give me a string consisting of the alphabet, that is 20 characters long, and predict my string. I have already written my string down, so in theory you could know about the string. [/quote]

1/Electrons are part of the structure of matter. 

2/because you wrote down your characters the way you wrote them is proof of not random, but cause.  You may not be aware of the cause, what caused you to write them down that way.

3/ Because in computer programing we need to "seed" it is also proof of no chaos in existence.

Not knowing the cause of something is not proof of random?


At every moment of life, each thing is a result of some other thing.  There is a unification of the universe from the point of the first expression of energy into manifestation, from that point of beginnings we are all tied together with everything in existence. 
The laws of science are what we see as the cause in the physical, but just underneath is pure energy and notihing else.

If you were to release all of the structured energy in the tip of a pin, It would destroy a city block.

Apparent chaos, is not the same as absolute chaos.  Apparent chaos requires a perceiver and a belief in chaos.

It utter objective reality chaos does not exist.  In order to have existence, and physical matter, you cannot have chaos.  You can only have order and structures.

When you wrote out your characters, they now have order and structure and before you put them on paper that order and structure was predetermined by all of the events that led up to the moment of your expression of them. There is no random.

If you want to return to nothingness, that would be equal to random.

But that is exactly the point of pseudorandomness. It is not really random, but it seems random. This seems random to you:

jakwlcovhtmgpqahrtod

Of course it has a cause, but you couldn't predict it, so hence it seems random. That is the whole point with seemingly randomness. Yes it has a cause, but because you can't predict it, the string seems random.

About the electron, I am afraid that you are wrong. You didn't address my argument, you just state that it is wrong. I asked some questions about this random process, and to debunk it you have to give explanations why they are not random. But they are, because you claim that it has a structure, but I showed you that when you prepare the electron up, it will never emit a quantum, and if you prepare it down it will always emit a quantum. If you prepare the electron in any other position, we can say by an exact probability if it will emit a quantum or not, continuously from 0 to 1. This will happen, even if we measure an electron in China and then another electron in USA. And they cannot possibly influence one another. There can be no factors for the electron in USA that influences the electron in China. The probability that these electrons give predictable probabilities are just as probable as evolution - very low. Te probability that the same experiment can be carried over again and again, and that an up-prepared electron always emit a quantum (just by chance), is virtually impossible IF there are factors outside that makes it seem random because we don't know any better.

So you do not believe in free will, is that it?

You didn't answer my question of LaTex code. Maybe you know of a better alternative? I really don't know how to present my ideas on information without it.

So if there is no free will, and no randomness, you do not believe in the Bible. That is fine - I have no problem with atheists. But I would certainly like to know how you would explain why the universe exists if there is no creator.

metha wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 3:19am:

But that is exactly the point of pseudorandomness. It is not really random, but it seems random. This seems random to you: jakwlcovhtmgpqahrtod Of course it has a cause, but you couldn't predict it, so hence it seems random. That is the whole point with seemingly randomness. Yes it has a cause, but because you can't predict it, the string seems random. About the electron, I am afraid that you are wrong. You didn't address my argument, you just state that it is wrong. I asked some questions about this random process, and to debunk it you have to give explanations why they are not random. But they are, because you claim that it has a structure, but I showed you that when you prepare the electron up, it will never emit a quantum, and if you prepare it down it will always emit a quantum. If you prepare the electron in any other position, we can say by an exact probability if it will emit a quantum or not, continuously from 0 to 1. This will happen, even if we measure an electron in China and then another electron in USA. And they cannot possibly influence one another. There can be no factors for the electron in USA that influences the electron in China. The probability that these electrons give predictable probabilities are just as probable as evolution - very low. Te probability that the same experiment can be carried over again and again, and that an up-prepared electron always emit a quantum (just by chance), is virtually impossible IF there are factors outside that makes it seem random because we don't know any better. So you do not believe in free will, is that it? You didn't answer my question of LaTex code. Maybe you know of a better alternative? I really don't know how to present my ideas on information without it.

You assume that I could not predict it.  Using my really crude program I was able to predict numbers consistently with a degree of accuracy that showed that random does not exist at any level.
It is a perception in the human mind to describe things not understood. It is the basis of many religious beliefs that are still in science today.

The universe operates on structures based on all the laws of science. Not just Newtons laws of physics. 

You didn't answer my question of LaTex code. Maybe you know of a better alternative? I really don't know how to present my ideas on information without it.

Use the menu and present it with jpegs of your information if you need to.  You can also do video presentations upload them to youtube and post them here.

I have not tried to use html on here, but I think you can.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 3:25am:

You assume that I could not predict it.

 

You can convince me if we do a test on this. I can give you a sequence of numbers (with structure), and you predict the next number.


Quote:

Using my really crude program I was able to predict numbers consistently with a degree of accuracy that showed that random does not exist at any level.

Then you can demonstrate this for all to see.



Quote:

It is a perception in the human mind to describe things not understood. It is the basis of many religious beliefs that are still in science today. The universe operates on structures based on all the laws of science. Not just Newtons laws of physics.

You state that I am wrong about the electrons, but you need to demonstrate how it is wrong and come up with an explanation for the insanely improbable fact that we can predict the probabilities, and WHY the factors that influences the outcome doesn't influence the outcome if you position the electron up or down. You can not just say that it is wrong, you have to tell me why.

About LaTex. Thanks a lot for your answer. I do not have a youtube account nor video software, and HTML will not be enough. Maybe i can make pictures, or else I will have to use LaTex. Will be harder to read, but possible.

metha wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 4:04am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 16th, 2009 at 3:25am: You assume that I could not predict it.   You can convince me if we do a test on this. I can give you a sequence of numbers (with structure), and you predict the next number. Quote: Using my really crude program I was able to predict numbers consistently with a degree of accuracy that showed that random does not exist at any level. Then you can demonstrate this for all to see. [quote]It is a perception in the human mind to describe things not understood. It is the basis of many religious beliefs that are still in science today. The universe operates on structures based on all the laws of science. Not just Newtons laws of physics.

You state that I am wrong about the electrons, but you need to demonstrate how it is wrong and come up with an explanation for the insanely improbable fact that we can predict the probabilities, and WHY the factors that influences the outcome doesn't influence the outcome if you position the electron up or down. You can not just say that it is wrong, you have to tell me why.

About LaTex. Thanks a lot for your answer. I do not have a youtube account nor video software, and HTML will not be enough. Maybe i can make pictures, or else I will have to use LaTex. Will be harder to read, but possible.[/quote]


When you are working at the level of electrons, you are not in the same level of things that can be tested for random. Just like pseudo random ping pong balls that will produce lottery numbers.  Those can be predicted if you have enough data to do it.

Just as when you destroy uranium in an atomic blast.  Once is is down below the level of the most basic element of hydrogen (one electron, one proton), you are in a different science that is outside of the elements.

This is on the level of beyond the physical.  Electrons are all the same, and are not diverse.

When talking about what is in the physical world and these electrons are part of the structure of the chemicals there is no random.

Once you destroy the structures, there is no structure in physics it is on a different level of subatomic.  It is like looking at a single brick and saying that is all there is to the building.

In the world that we live in with all of these structures random does not exist. Even in a computer program you have to seed the program to get a "pseudo random" number.

We don't even know for sure if electrons only pass in wire or if they have the ability to pass on the charges in a wave from one electron to the next.  If we can work on that principle, I propose it would change the speed at which computers can run.

You issue is that what you are doing is a pseudo random or apparent random, not an absolute random.  In all cases it is simply taking structures and shaking them around and let them bump into each other.

But if you slow it down and actually look at all the "bumping" going on it is completely following the law of cause and effect.

When you are dealing with complex cell structures and DNA, you cannot just simply scramble the box and not have the creatures die.  Random in DNA is death.

Having a bunch of ping pong balls with numbers on them in an air chamber has no relationship to genetics.  Trying to force false beliefs on DNA is a mental illness caused by improper scientific training.

I feel that you do not understand what I am trying to say, GoodScienceForYou, and espcially the difference between randomness and seemingly randomness. I say the following:

1) The randomness in electrons are real. This can be shown directly by measuring the spin of an electron after it was prepared. An electron seems to have exactly 2 states, and nothing in between (which would be more logical in classical physics). No outer factors can influence the electrons when we prepare them, because strong magnetic fields are used to prepare an electron. Then we measure if it emits a quantum or if it doesn't. We can always predict the probability, and to such accuracy that outer factors can be ruled out and such that it is virtually impossible that the electron-state isn't random. It really is, I have seen it with my own eyes, and the results are simply goosebumpsical.

2) The example you provide with ping pong balls is seemingly random. With that I mean that we can in principle predict the balls, but the factors influencing the outcome are too complicated to really make a prediction. So hence it seems random to us, since we cannot predict the outcomes. This is different from the electron example, and this is deterministic, classical and Newtonian. A random generator in a computer is OF COURSE not really random. Of ocurse it is pseudorandom. Of course computer programs need a seed, nothing would make sense without one. But if you do not know the seed, it is very, very, very difficult (even impossible) for you to predict the next number. So hence it SEEMS random, and you using your credit card actually relies on this!

3) You do not believe in free will?

Want to test it? I can give you a number sequence with a structure and then you predict the next number using your program. I am not saing I do not believe you, I just say that I am very interested.

metha wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 1:43pm:

I feel that you do not understand what I am trying to say, GoodScienceForYou, and espcially the difference between randomness and seemingly randomness. I say the following: 1) The randomness in electrons are real. This can be shown directly by measuring the spin of an electron after it was prepared. An electron seems to have exactly 2 states, and nothing in between (which would be more logical in classical physics). No outer factors can influence the electrons when we prepare them, because strong magnetic fields are used to prepare an electron. Then we measure if it emits a quantum or if it doesn't. We can always predict the probability, and to such accuracy that outer factors can be ruled out and such that it is virtually impossible that the electron-state isn't random. It really is, I have seen it with my own eyes, and the results are simply goosebumpsical. 2) The example you provide with ping pong balls is seemingly random. With that I mean that we can in principle predict the balls, but the factors influencing the outcome are too complicated to really make a prediction. So hence it seems random to us, since we cannot predict the outcomes. This is different from the electron example, and this is deterministic, classical and Newtonian. A random generator in a computer is OF COURSE not really random. Of ocurse it is pseudorandom. Of course computer programs need a seed, nothing would make sense without one. But if you do not know the seed, it is very, very, very difficult (even impossible) for you to predict the next number. So hence it SEEMS random, and you using your credit card actually relies on this! 3) You do not believe in free will? Want to test it? I can give you a number sequence with a structure and then you predict the next number using your program. I am not saing I do not believe you, I just say that I am very interested.

There is free will, but most people do not use it. They are controlled by fear. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 12:10am:

There is free will, but most people do not use it. They are controlled by fear.

But then there is such a thing as true randomness.

metha wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 2:30am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 12:10am: There is free will, but most people do not use it. They are controlled by fear.  But then there is such a thing as true randomness.

How would you go about proving that one?  I am not talking about abstract mathematics.  I am talking about in the real physical world of matter, interactions, and reactions.

Real science and real scientists should never make assumptions about anything. It is not science, but projection of belief.

Random is not a proven or even tested by the scientific methodology as even a scientific principle in the physical world of mass, momentum,and interactions between organic life.

There is no science without forming an experiment to show your hypothesis. So far no scientist has ever been able to show random in the physical world (no experiments show this).

In real science there is only energy, mass, in motion and the reactions on these actions. That can never be random, by the laws of physics: "For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

There can NEVER be random events in the physical world, because once energy is expressed it can only follow the laws of physics or genetics, as it transfers and propagates energy and genetic (DNA) interactions into the world.

The only possible use of the term random is in pure mathematics, and in electronics where you only have one "thing" electrons and electron clouds (all the same "particle" with noting else) but this does not equate to random in the physical world.

If random were true, then evolution is not true, because it is impossible by the laws of physics to produce any form of evolution that could ever be random. It would have to be only a "genetic" chain reaction to events and that is never random.

There is only genetics, and genetics is not random but a result of information behind the DNA, traits passed into the DNA, and that is all. If you were to calculate the permutations of the probability of, for instance 3.2billion DNA base pairs and their "expression" as they form the foundation for human cells it could not happen in hundreds of trillions of years by "random" events.

This is mathematically proven facts. As we say the way the cards are dealt are they way they happened, but each event only happened one way and only one way, based only on what has already transpired. What is stated here cannot be falsified, therefore it remains as well tested and known scientific principles. We need to remove any ambiguous assumptions from genetic science.

metha wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 2:30am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 12:10am: There is free will, but most people do not use it. They are controlled by fear.  But then there is such a thing as true randomness.

True randomness could never be used in a mathematical equation. The term mathematics is a precise set of rules that are not random.

There exists no random in the universe.
The reason why random has disclaimers on it is because pure random is not existent.
It is only cause and effect so fast that you think it is random, because you feeble mind cannot comprehend even 100 events taking place, much less trillions of scientific events taking place in a split second.  Random is a damn excuse for human stupidity.

There exists no random in the universe.
The reason why random has disclaimers on it (like "apparent random")  is because pure random is not existent.
It is only cause and effect so fast that you think it is random, because you feeble mind cannot comprehend even 100 events taking place, much less trillions of scientific events taking place in a split second.  Random is a damn excuse for human stupidity.

wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 7:53am:

This thread is about "randomness". It is meant to be a place to establish some consistent terminology. So a question for GoodScienceForYou: How do you describe a natural process that produces different results? And how do you characterize the results of that process? Take snowflakes for instance. One could examine millions of snowflakes and most likely not find any two that are identical. This is because Ice crystal formation is sensitive to small scale condition variances. And because the snowflakes fall through different humidity and temperature conditions. The laws of physics combined with the complexity of the system produces a phenomenon called 'chaos'. That is unpredictability in complex systems. From the wiki: Quote: Chaos theory is an area of inquiry in mathematics, physics, and philosophy which studies the behavior of certain dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. You see, the system involves NO randomness, just how you like it. Which I agree with. But how do you characterize all of the variation in the snowflakes?

Your thinking is twisted.  Because you do not have the capacity to understand something, does not give you the right to manipulate the meaning of what is real.

In the future predictability of all things in the physical world will be easily done, by computers capable of that many calculations at one instant.

If you were to do a chart on the computing power we have now and what was in the past, you can easily see the direction computer science is taking us.

It will eventually destroy all the bovine garbage in science, such as mystical magical evolutionary processes that only exist in the minds of the believers.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 7:03pm:

True randomness could never be used in a mathematical equation.

Of course it could. probability distributions are very important in mathematics.


Quote:

The term mathematics is a precise set of rules that are not random.

OF COURSE the mathematics itself is not random. OF COURSE that is not the issue here. The point is that mathematics, of course not random in itself after defined, DEALS with randomness and calculates with random events.

There exists no random in the universe.
The reason why random has disclaimers on it is because pure random is not existent.
It is only cause and effect so fast that you think it is random, because you feeble mind cannot comprehend even 100 events taking place, much less trillions of scientific events taking place in a split second.  Random is a damn excuse for human stupidity.
[/quote]

metha wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 4:15am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14th, 2010 at 7:03pm: True randomness could never be used in a mathematical equation. Of course it could. probability distributions are very important in mathematics. Quote: The term mathematics is a precise set of rules that are not random. OF COURSE the mathematics itself is not random. OF COURSE that is not the issue here. The point is that mathematics, of course not random in itself after defined, DEALS with randomness and calculates with random events. There exists no random in the universe. The reason why random has disclaimers on it is because pure random is not existent. It is only cause and effect so fast that you think it is random, because you feeble mind cannot comprehend even 100 events taking place, much less trillions of scientific events taking place in a split second.  Random is a damn excuse for human stupidity.

[/quote]

You need to give up this idea of random. It only shows that you are not capable of understanding how the universe operates.

Just because you are not capable of understanding all the events taking place, because of your feeble mind, does not validate this false premise of random.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

You need to give up this idea of random. It only shows that you are not capable of understanding how the universe operates.

And you need to give up mathematics and physics, because you don't even understand what 1st year university mathematics on the basic and fundamental fourier series is about.

metha wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:22pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:41am: You need to give up this idea of random. It only shows that you are not capable of understanding how the universe operates. And you need to give up mathematics and physics, because you don't even understand what 1st year university mathematics on the basic and fundamental fourier series is about.

I thought you were talking about euler's totient?