Posted on 05/08/2006 1:17:07 PM PDT by mlc9852
Human interaction with animals could be causing evolution to go into reverse, says a report by the Royal Society, Britain's science academy.
A study of finches on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific finches are the same birds that were said to have inspired Charles Darwin's groundbreaking work on evolution - has shown that some could be losing their distinctive beaks in response to living near humans.
Finches on the islands have developed different sizes of beak - but when people live in close proximity to the birds, their beaks revert to an intermediate size, the report says.
Andrew Hendry, a professor at McGill University in Montreal who led the study, told the Independent newspaper that the evolutionary split within the species was being reversed.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.aljazeera.net ...
So what do we look for? Dreams? Feelings? Thoughts expressed in bad poetry?
Just for the record,
I don't run the universe,
just this spiral arm . . .
Well js1138, for openers Id say: all the information pertaining to all existents in the Universe in the past (much of which still lives in human consciousness); and all the information pertaining to the not-yet-realized possibilities of the Universe that will manifest in the future. I imagine that we denizens of the present time do not see let alone embody in language all the (astronomically huge) amount of information, realized or yet-to-be realized, that is floating all around us (so to speak).
All of which probably sounds pretty useless to you. So let me try to relate aspects of the insight to certain important lines of modern scientific thought.
Superposition (more specifically quantum superposition) is the situation that obtains when an object simultaneously possesses two or more values for an observable quantity such as the position or energy of a particle. According to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, it is impossible to see both values at once. And this is a problem when setting up an experimental design, for one must decide which one wants to see, particle or wave. The experiment cannot in principle be set up to test both mass and velocity at once.
So it seems to me, we have an observer problem here or not problem exactly, but issue. For the experimenter must decide in which mode of the superposition he wants to work, particle or wave.
Now I figure FWIW the information contained in the eclipsed part of the superposition the part of the complementary duality that the observer didnt choose to focus on contains information that is not embodied. Only the part the observer intended can give an informational report.
This report is a second issue of the observer problem: It already suffers from perspectival limits of observation. Yet usually it is intended for a public audience.
Now if all this still sounds pretty nutz, we can take our problem up to Schröedingers perspective. It was he who took the quantum superposition problem up to the Newtonian level, so to make it visible to human beings walking around in the 4D universe that Newtonian mechanics so ably describes. He did it by means of a thought experiment that was meticulously arranged to mimic actual technical capabilities available at the time.
His question was: Is the cat dead or alive or both? [Please Google Schröedingers Cat for details of the set-up of the experiment.]
As it turned out, all of these states are superposed states; the cat is all of them. But the cat that is real for us is decidedly not the cat we do not and maybe cannot see.
So this would be a third issue of the observer problem .
But I digress. My point is that there may be non-observed, non-actualized informational components that may become actualized and observable as the Universe evolves. In which case, our definition of Reality would have to be expanded to comprehend both existent and non-existent modes.
Wheeler joked about his friend Bohr in so many words: Niels says if it isnt observed, it doesnt exist.
I gather this is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Funny thing is, I find a lot to admire in it, and first and foremost Niels Bohr himself.
Thanks for writing, js1138!
You've written a lot of words but haven't mentioned anything that isn't physical.
Hey JC! Meant to ping you to #225, for you were the one who first brought up Schroedinger. And I think you're right about Shannon too.
Thanks so much for the original ping! Hope to hear from you further.
Oh really???
I don't know what to say, js1138. Put your eyeglasses on??? Or maybe take them off???
Uncle. I give up. You've got me totally stumped.
------That's called a change in the allele frequency. In other words, evolution.
No, it's change, but it isn't "evolution." For "evolution" you need (at a minimum) the introduction of new genetic material, not simply the elimination of some characteristics in some individuals. Check your dictionary, see de-vol-u-tion, n. It's interesting that loss of specific traits is so much easier to document than addition of traits, A fact that lends support to the ID folk.
The biologists love to tell us about fish that lost their eyes, moths that lost their color, horses that lost their toes, hippos that lost their legs, birds that lost their teeth, Aunt Sally losing her appendix etc., etc., all to convince us that "little by little, the accumulation (!) of changes has lead to the structures we see today."
What these biomissionaries need is a Freshman Logic course.
You could use a freshman biology course. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in populations.
It is a fact that additional genetic material is sometimes added or subtracted from genomes, but the most common form of evolution is the change in allele frequency. New alleles are introduced all the time by mutation. Animal and plant breeders have been observing this for centuries. Mutations used to be called sports.
But unless the information is coherent, which at the point you are arguing, it is not...then what distinguishes it from noise?
What should we expect from the Harun Yahya supporters, not to mention BAV.
This is reading more into superposition than is there. The object does not simultaneously posses two (or more) values of a measurable. The same experimental setup, with the same inputs, may yield more than one value if repeated. It may seem a subtle point, but the measurables do not behave as if they were "possessed." In particular, quantum systems violate Bell's inequalities.
On being asked how can God be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. by an observer once.. It came to me that I was then, a Son, a Father, a Grand Father(and more) all at the same time.. What was I then?.. Depended on the observer, still does.. I pray that many/some get lifted in their observation(s) to see more.. Indeed many have a low vantage point to observe from.. but not all.. The observer problem(issue) has very much benefit to observer considering it..
My cows aren't angry! They've just evolved nightvision. Pretty cool huh!
Mini horses are great! We went out to the breeders that we bought them from the other day. They had three newborns at their place. So CUTE! The babies actually resemble a regular horse more than the full grown miniatures. The babies legs are longer, they're thinner, and their head is more in proportion. I swear it looks like someone took a normal horse and shrank it to the size of a poodle.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You are always a delight to read.
(I'll assume this makes sense to you.)
Perhaps there are legions of spirits, phantoms, faeries, ghosts, angels and garden gnomes spinning about our heads. Clouds of virtual entities, all undetectable by banal, humdrum physical methods. Vast realms of scientific possibilities, all (alas) undetectable by hidebound, prosaic physics.
Fine and dandy, but there's no point in claiming them as a legitimate fields of physical study until you propose some means to verify or invalidate their existence. Otherwise it's just so much intellectual wankery. And trying to invoke said entities in a discussion about the evolution of bird beaks, as if these alleged entities are somehow causing changes in the little birds eating apparatus is...um...be diplomatic here...not a credible hypothesis at this time.
Although I like the 'clouds of flying garden gnomes' image', personally.
clouds of gnomes placemarker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.