"Scientifically speaking, we do believe, despite your insistence to the contrary, that uncertainty of quantum events causes point mutations, and point mutation is the engine which generates new information required for evolutionary change. So tell us how you know (since all measurements are uncertain) that the so called "uncertainty of quantum events causes point mutations" is by chance, and not design... Amazing the circular logic passing itself off as science...
You are misunderstanding the difference between the uncertainty principle, which scientifically demonstrates the unpredictability of the speed and location of sub atomic particles as they strike germ cell DNA molecules, with the uncertainty of the existence of a supernatural designer. The uncertainty principle prevents any natural alien designer (space creature), who is subject to the restrictions of the universe within which we currently find ourselves, from hitting a molecular target at a distance with a subatomic particle, so as to initiate a point mutation, because that alien designer cannot accurately calculate the moment of impact to coincide with a desired location in the genome. Thus, we are left with the requirement that the designer must be supernatural. And, as the supernatural is beyond measurement (which is the sort of "uncertainty" which you are trying to equate to Heisenberg's theory, but which is not the same thing), it follows that "scientifically," no designer is possible. Theologically, of course, a designer may exist, but that is magic, and it's out of scope of scientific investigation, so raising this as an alternative scientific theory is a non sequitur. Now, there IS one other possible "scientific theory," which cannot be ruled out entirely, and which "is" potentially discoverable via scientific investigation. That theory is that a natural alien designer, physically seeded the Earth with life and thereby initiated evolution, or alternatively, captured one of our primate ancestors and intentionally fused the 1st and 2nd chromosomes together using genetic engineering techniques which would not violate the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in order to create the human species. However, for this remaining possibility, there will be some physical trail to follow. The trail of an interstellar spacecraft would be ascertainable by SETI's radio-frequency pattern investigations. Some artifacts of a visitor's presence would be found on the Earth's surface. The fossil evidence would suggest an instant shift from our ancestors to humans, etc. But, none of the available evidence suggests that man was genetically engineered 4.5 million years ago. So, science has discounted this possibility to a practical nullity. As for the possibility of an atmospheric seeding by an alien intelligence, well, once again, the question is: where's the designer's home world, and how come no cosmological evidence of this visit has ever been discovered? Moreover it begs the question as to why the ID community never actually asserts these positions are their primary focus? Why is it always God, that ID advocates appeal to as the only plausible answer? SETI is the only real intelligent design science currently existing, yet the ID community never discusses that at all. Why is that? You know why, Z. Because the ID community does not want to find out that we are the product of some alien "natural" actor. The ID community wants to propagate the scientifically unprovable position, that we are the product of a supernatural deity, who created us in His image for a divine purpose. And, I don't dismiss this as the ultimate truth. But, that's not science -- it's religion. So, absent some credible proof of an extraterrestrial visitor to Earth, there is zero scientific evidence for a design theory and no reason why the scientific community should be actively searching for one, in any greater degree than with the SETI program. However, if and when such evidence appears and can be confirmed by a repeatable experiment, I will be one of the first on board trying to help discover how this magnificent feat of evolutionary engineering was accomplished, if only to protect the human species from the return of the designer, which in my opinion would probably turn out a whole lot more like the movie "Independence Day," than the film "Close Encounters" (and, yes, this last thought is my unsupported opinion).
Uncertainty principle demonstrates that when something is measured on a quantum level, the results of simultaneous measurements are not predictable. Is this phenomena a result of chance, or by design? No one knows... Why it is unpredictable, is not really known, it is a guess. It could be by design. It doesn't mean that the object of measurement itself is known to be chance motivated... Just one among many of the scientific knowns that are really not knowns at all... Oh, and design isn't magic at all. It is simply design, programming... If humans can design a table of random numbers, and unless you think the human brain is the pinnacle of "evolution" in the endless universe, which is of course an extremely vain perspective, then it is easy to postulate design without the thought of something "supernatural." To say that something is "supernatural" because it is beyond current instrumentation or understanding, is to say that quantum mechanics itself, if discussed 500 years ago would be "supernatural." Science has continually, and predictably shown that with each and every limit of science that is reached, the "end of science" blather is heard, only to find deeper and deeper information just around the corner as instrumentation become more and more subtle in nature. With each answer come even more unanswered questions. The dogmatic, shallow, unscientific, subjective and closed minded thought process that has demonstrated itself by the defenders of chance in this thread leaves me in wonder as to the size of the intellect that is really at work...
logically, IS, ID, the Flying Spaghetti Monster & the avant-guardist Green-Cheesian theologies are broadly equivalent. more realistically, it is scientifically possible that there is nothing but a cricket between your eyes and ears, but you just don't know it... chirp chirp...
there is no valid reason whatsoever to assume causation of evolution, a purely dogmatic theistic thinking... already thrown out centuries ago!... your job is done zizzz
that is correct!!!! see zizzz, even a cricket like u can do it!!! i knew it now what u are missing is, the limit that has been broken since early 20C is that of CAUSALITY itself have a look at Bell's theorem and how it ties in with the uncertainty principle, EPR etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Theorem to simplify for you: there are "effects" that are of "non-causal" nature moreover, causality itself is just an emerging property of some systems... a few good reads: http://critcrim.org/redfeather/chaos/002causality.html http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1275778&highlight=causality#post1275778 breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics: the fluctuation theorem, and experiments go cricket go!
bah, we're pretty good at cloning already, OGMs etc... thats a first step towards more advanced genetic design... its no so many years before we start spewing out all sorts of new life forms at the back of a truck... no big deal... talk about a causality there john - there are other possible scientific alternatives though, even if full theoretical grounding, let alone falsification, is a long shot... for example, what we perceive as our universe cld simply be a topological fractal defect of an essentially tachyonic non-causal bubbly or hyperspherical world eg H6D type with a twist http://specularium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=47 http://specularium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=73 anyway, back to trading...
I was introducing an alternative theory that is at least scientifically possible to illustrate the difference between science and magic -- real science and philisophical masterbation. But, some people need to propagate a theory of existence which permits explanation of why they consistently lose money while attempting to trade a seemingly predictable technical chart. An uncertain future requires personal responsibility for one's own failures. Absolute certainty means that personal failure is unavoidable. For a person who has suffered a lifetime of failures, nothing is better than to live in a universe where a master puppeteer is in total control.