Virgil wrote:
In article <g0nk4a$1p7k$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:


It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
pattern.


Not for me. If any one stick were to be exactly in balance on its
pointed end, which, while highly improbable, is not impossible, then its
direction of eventual fall is unpredictable, and could be effected by
quantum events.


Highly improbable? About as improbable as the quantum fluctuation that
initiated the big bang. You wouldn't see this happen in any of the
trillion identical worlds, but you might see it if you had a trillion
raised to the power of a trillion worlds.

Just getting the stick to perfectly balance is a problem in itself.

In article <g11mb0$1aci$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Virgil wrote:
In article <g0nk4a$1p7k$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:


It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
pattern.


Not for me. If any one stick were to be exactly in balance on its
pointed end, which, while highly improbable, is not impossible, then its
direction of eventual fall is unpredictable, and could be effected by
quantum events.


Highly improbable? About as improbable as the quantum fluctuation that
initiated the big bang. You wouldn't see this happen in any of the
trillion identical worlds, but you might see it if you had a trillion
raised to the power of a trillion worlds.

The set of vertical positions from which a stick's eventual direction of
falling would be effected by quantum events has positive measure.

Just getting the stick to perfectly balance is a problem in itself.

It only has to be sufficiently in balance to have its future positions
macroscopically effected by quantum effects. If Schroedinger's cat's
life can be affected by quantum effects, so can the final positions of
pick up sticks.

We
humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon

No, I can't imagine any situation whereby the universe is
deterministic or completely repeatable on replay, even
replicating the original conditions.

In article <g170bf$kt8$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>, r norman <r_s_norman at (no spam) _comcast.net> wrote:


We
humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon


We are! (Albeit only when well dark-adapted and even
then at a low rate compared to, say, turtles).


No, I can't imagine any situation whereby the universe is
deterministic or completely repeatable on replay, even
replicating the original conditions.


Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
level. As in this simple example:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/Bunimovich/Bunimovich.html

DK

On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:27:26 -0400 (EDT), Virgil <Virgil at (no spam) gmale.com
wrote:


In article <g11mb0$1aci$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:


Virgil wrote:

In article <g0nk4a$1p7k$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:



It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
pattern.


Not for me. If any one stick were to be exactly in balance on its
pointed end, which, while highly improbable, is not impossible, then its
direction of eventual fall is unpredictable, and could be effected by
quantum events.


Highly improbable? About as improbable as the quantum fluctuation that
initiated the big bang. You wouldn't see this happen in any of the
trillion identical worlds, but you might see it if you had a trillion
raised to the power of a trillion worlds.

The set of vertical positions from which a stick's eventual direction of
falling would be effected by quantum events has positive measure.

Just getting the stick to perfectly balance is a problem in itself.

It only has to be sufficiently in balance to have its future positions
macroscopically effected by quantum effects. If Schroedinger's cat's
life can be affected by quantum effects, so can the final positions of
pick up sticks.


I confess to being the creator of the "pick-up sticks" metaphor. It
was really just that and not a serious example of a situation strongly
influenced by quantum phenomena. However there are, indeed, enough
possibilities where quantum phenomena can be magnified to exert a
macroscopic effect. Biology is the best example where the behavior of
an entire organism is produced by the behavior of its cells which is
produced by the behavior of its organelles which is produced by the
behavior of its molecules which most definitely can be influenced by
quantal fluctuations. In particular, there are organisms known where
activity in a single neuron releases significant behavior. And
fluctuations in the details of molecular gates in the membrane can
alter the firing of the neuron. Also there are powerful amplifying
factors in cell signaling machinery so that individual molecular
events can cause significant changes in the activity of a cell. We
humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon but only a very
small number is necessary to evoke a response and we can measure the
response to single photons. Certainly the absorption of a photon by a
molecule must be taken to be a quantal event.

In article <g170bf$kt... at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>, r norman <r_s_norman at (no spam) _comcast.net> wrote:

Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
level. As in this simple example:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/B...

DK
You are right about chaotic effects being for all practical

On May 24, 2:20 am, d... at (no spam) no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <g170bf$kt... at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>, r norman
r_s_norman at (no spam) _comcast.net> wrote:

Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
level. As in this simple
example:http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/B.
..

DK
You are right about chaotic effects being for all practical
purposes nondeterministic. I think that is what Gould actually meant,
but stated in Gould's condescending style.
For example, a chaotic eventthe posters that disagree are making a
mistake as to what Gould meant by contingency..
I think part of the confusion is with Gould's statement about
"rewinding the tape of life." One of the posters here makes the
arguable claim that rewinding is a deterministic process.
Gould made a lot of ambiguous statements. At the same time, he
made arrogant remarks putting down physical scientists who worry about
ambiguity. Gould is a bit wrong.

I like Dawkins better than Gould because he addresses the
quantitative concepts in evolutionary theory, even in his popular
writing.

Keep in mind that just because an event takes place at the quantum
level, that doesn't mean it is a random event.

r norman wrote:

On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:27:26 -0400 (EDT), Virgil <Virgil at (no spam) gmale.com
wrote:


In article <g11mb0$1aci$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:


Virgil wrote:

In article <g0nk4a$1p7k$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>,
dkomo <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:



It's hard to imagine any quantum fluctuation
strong enough to cause one set of pick-up sticks to fall in a different
pattern.


Not for me. If any one stick were to be exactly in balance on its
pointed end, which, while highly improbable, is not impossible, then its
direction of eventual fall is unpredictable, and could be effected by
quantum events.


Highly improbable? About as improbable as the quantum fluctuation that
initiated the big bang. You wouldn't see this happen in any of the
trillion identical worlds, but you might see it if you had a trillion
raised to the power of a trillion worlds.

The set of vertical positions from which a stick's eventual direction of
falling would be effected by quantum events has positive measure.

Just getting the stick to perfectly balance is a problem in itself.

It only has to be sufficiently in balance to have its future positions
macroscopically effected by quantum effects. If Schroedinger's cat's
life can be affected by quantum effects, so can the final positions of
pick up sticks.


I confess to being the creator of the "pick-up sticks" metaphor. It
was really just that and not a serious example of a situation strongly
influenced by quantum phenomena. However there are, indeed, enough
possibilities where quantum phenomena can be magnified to exert a
macroscopic effect. Biology is the best example where the behavior of
an entire organism is produced by the behavior of its cells which is
produced by the behavior of its organelles which is produced by the
behavior of its molecules which most definitely can be influenced by
quantal fluctuations. In particular, there are organisms known where
activity in a single neuron releases significant behavior. And
fluctuations in the details of molecular gates in the membrane can
alter the firing of the neuron. Also there are powerful amplifying
factors in cell signaling machinery so that individual molecular
events can cause significant changes in the activity of a cell. We
humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon but only a very
small number is necessary to evoke a response and we can measure the
response to single photons. Certainly the absorption of a photon by a
molecule must be taken to be a quantal event.


Keep in mind that just because an event takes place at the quantum
level, that doesn't mean it is a random event. A photon striking an
atom will cause an electron to be ejected 100% of the time if the energy
of the photon is greater than the ionization energy of the electron.
There's no *probabilty* less than one that the electron will be ejected!

Another example is measuring the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.
This energy is an eigenvalue of the lowest energy eigenstate of the
atom. These kinds of eigenvalues are *determinate*, not probabilistic!
Measure the ionization energy a million times, and you will get the same
value a million times (within experimental error).

You're throwing out all these examples of quantum phenomena but you
haven't considered which are truly random, and which aren't.

I'm preparing a second draft of my "Evolution is NOT random" thesis
which will address the question of quantum events. It will, in part,
make use of the "E" word -- emergence.

DK wrote:
In article <g170bf$kt8$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org>, r norman
r_s_norman at (no spam) _comcast.net> wrote:


We
humans are not capable of "seeing" a single photon


We are! (Albeit only when well dark-adapted and even
then at a low rate compared to, say, turtles).


No, I can't imagine any situation whereby the universe is
deterministic or completely repeatable on replay, even
replicating the original conditions.


Of course universe is not completely deterministic and
not repeatable on reply - but that in no way means quantum
effects in biology a role of any significance. The source
of non-determinism is chaotic effects on essentially every
level. As in this simple example:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/Bunimovich
/Bunimovich.html

DK


How is this simulation non-deterministic? It's produced by a computer
running an algorithm.

Chaos is NOT a source of randomness in nature.

Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.

If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.

Buddy wrote:
Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.

If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.


The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.

My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.


--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com

"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...

Buddy wrote:

Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.

If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.


The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.

My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.


--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com




Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...

Cj wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871 at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g245u7$18qd$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...

Buddy wrote:

Of course evolution is random.
Simply based on probabilistic outcomes.

If a planet was to be formed at the precise distance from a star of
the exact temperature and size as our own, the species of life upon
that planet will be different.
Yes WILL be different.


The species of life will be different because that planet and its sun
are not identical in every way to earth and its sun, not because
evolution is random. Plus comets and asteroids striking that planet
will be of different sizes and strike at different times in its history
than they did on earth.

My argument is that starting with *absolutely* identical conditions
(i.e. "replaying the tape of life") evolution will produce 99% of the
same lifeforms.


--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com




Not quite, if a few large meteors had missed earth a few million years ago
things would be very different now and not 99% like now...



Meteors striking the earth are part of the tape of life. So if you
replay the tape, guess what, those meteors would hit exactly the same way.

If you want to replay the tape and allow all manner of macroscopic
contingencies to change, then Gould's thought experiment becomes
vacuous. Of *course* then evolution would be different. Nobody could
could disagree with that.

I'm looking for intrinsically random events that could affect the way
life evolved. Meteors and volcanic erruptions and continental drift and
global climate change are not random events. They would repeat in any
replay.


--dkomo at (no spam) cris.com