Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Science is not done just in the lab. Other posts have already given examples of findings that would falsify evolution.
Got it.
This post would be remarkable if true.
Creationists acknowledging that the fossil record is real???
I’m stunned.
He didn't. It was taken by an AP photographer.
Cordially,
Do you know the relation between frequency and the energy contained in a quantum?
You gonna make him walk the Planck?
Are you familiar with series solutions to wave functions? The wave function doesn't project upon one of your eigenbases (in this case of the Hamiltonian) unless you actually measure it. With the Schrödinger wave equation in the energy base the wave function will be defined by each element of the series with appropriate weighting functions. Unless you actively measure the energy transfer in a cell in the infinite places that it could occur over an infinite time, your question has no meaning. It would be better to describe how the wave function transmits or reflects along the cell barriers. And that is continuous (and the first derivatives are also continuous).
If you want to continue this argument I suggest you give up your quantum physical modeling of a non-quantum sized object. It would be much simpler to use the continuity equation to support the conservation of energy argument you are trying to use. As far as energy tied to frequency, that is based on the de Broglie relation, which is again is not going to give you satisfactory answers once you factor in uncertainty and non-quantum particles (as I pointed out before and you ignored).
I hope you actually haven't studied quantum mechanics or I would be embarrassed for your teacher.
>>This is true, but evolution doesn’t predict that diversity will increase without limit. Species having large populations will not easily split into multiple species, although they may change over time.
Increase in the number of species is not guaranteed by evolution.<<
Thank you.
>>Didn’t Darwin himself predict that there was a moth with an 18” long tongue based on the structure of a flower he found?
BTW, the moth was discovered years later...<<
I’ve seen a list of dozens of species and fossil predictions made correctly using evolutionary theory.
>>You are not understanding the nature nor source of the resonance. <<
No doubt. My various quantum mechanics professors said a lot worse than that to me.
>>It comes from the pulse rate that is dictated by quanta. <<
Ressonance in living cells has more to do with macroscopic size. You are mixing things of such different sizes that the physics are quite different.
>>Energy in a living cell does not constantly flow;<<
Energy in all bodies above absolute zero constantly flows. (And maybe at absolute zero too but that’s a long story)
>> it is emitted in quanta,<<
Yes
>>and the frequency may depend upon the total energy production of the cell. More energy production = higher frequency.<<
If you talking about cells of plants or animals (or anything else above molecular level) the frequency is a function of temperature.
Hmm now that I think about it, that energy emission (black body radiation) is one of the best ways to show the breakdown of classical physics. I kind of see where you are going.
>>He’s framing a theological, or philosophical, argument, rather than a scientific one. Your objection is duly noted, but but invalid on those terms.<<
My apologies. On reflection I see you are correct.
Absolutely not!
I'm getting this from a young cousin (26) who is making over $300K / year playing with this stuff. He has some images of light being emmited inside a cell nucleus that are bizzare.
Would you like to try again? ;o)
It's been obvious all along that you don't have a clue to what you're talking about. Are you now admitting that that you are selectively quoting and using someone else's education out of context in a dishonest attempt to juxtapose real science with your own bogus anti-science?
Absolutely not!
I'm getting this from a young cousin (26) who is making over $300K / year playing with this stuff. He has some images of light being emmited inside a cell nucleus that are bizzare.
You are trying to lecture the rest of us on quantum mechanics when you don't even know what you are talking about? Give me a break!
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid).Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
>>”compared to 1x10^14 for a atomic nucleus”
Would you like to try again? ;o)<<
Apologies.... 1x10^-14
You’re upset because I couldn’t quote the exact relationship between freq and energy? Give me the break!
Get off your high horse you plastic penguin; that exactly what you do constantly, so you assume that's what I do? I was trying to share some really interesting, cutting edge stuff with a few intelligent people here, so it doesn't concern you anyway.
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.