When will be the next big leap foreward?

[Barwick]

You're looking at the wrong thing. You're asking for the probability that a system will spring up all of the sudden, without any intervening steps. But no one is claiming that this happens!

No, that was the entire point. There exist (I wish there was a backwards "E" on computer keyboards... if you're a computer scientist you know what I'm talking about)... There exist systems that are composed of multiple constituent parts which on their own are either of no benefit, or harmful. Such a system would be required to all happen at the same time, or be preserved in subsequent generations. A system like this comprised of 5 parts is what I was talking about. 6, 7, 8, 20, 50, 100 part systems are out there, and each one is exponentially harder.

 

[inflector]

How did this interesting topic get derailed onto yet another creationist rant?

 

[Upisoft]

Tell me you're kidding...

http://www.discovery.org/a/2400
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
http://creation.com/contemporary-suppression-of-the-theistic-worldview
http://creation.com/darwinian-thought-police-strike-again
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html
http://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists
http://creation.com/scientific-american-refuses-to-hire-creationist

Then sorry, it is not based on science. It is religion with science-like mask.

 

[Upisoft]

You're looking at the wrong thing. You're asking for the probability that a system will spring up all of the sudden, without any intervening steps.

Not exactly. He calculates the probability of existence of the organism. I agree it is quite improbable. The problem with his reasoning is that evolution does not tell that the organism must have evolved in this state only. There are many many possible paths for the evolution and this is the one that really happened. Like the example with the coin any combination of 1 million tosses is extremely improbable, but nevertheless if you do the experiment you will end up with one of them, no matter how "improbable" that is.

Why he thinks the evolution on Earth took the one and only one possible way, beats me.

 

[AJ_2010]

I've had many discussion with religious types before and its like talking to a wall. (Religious types = No offence meant - its just for use of a better phrase).

The basis of science is that it welcomes any theory to be disproved by repeatable verified experiments, that will demonstrate/measure/observe the outcome in developing a new better (more accurate) theory.
But with religion it is a closed loop of 'old aged facts' based on old scriptures that from the time of publishing means that any advancement can only occur by twisting the meanings of words within.

Religious types have a strong emotional/family/traditional connection with what they are supposed to believe and this often clashes with science. This is because science moves on at a staggering rate based on knowledge/understanding and the technology to perform more accurate measurements.

So trying to turn the mind of a believer is like trying to turn Frankincense into Gold ;)
They simply will not accept the rationality and accuracy of science because they are emotionally bound not to.

(Apologies if this offends anyone, its just my own opinion on the matter).
Is it possible we could get back on topic? :)

 

[inflector]

Yes, I cast one vote for taking the creation/evolution debate to another thread if you want to continue it.

 

[Upisoft]

Well, I had enough. He actually had only more propaganda. 8 links...

 

[Barwick]

Well, I had enough. He actually had only more propaganda. 8 links...

I was trying to spare you more reading by not going into further detail. The thread has gone way off topic. Regardless suffice to say, there's evidence on both sides, and for "the next big leap forward" to happen, scientists need to stop listening only to evidence that supports their own preconceptions about what's true. Fair enough?

 

[inflector]

An advance in theoretical physics occurred august 17, 2010. In four years or so, it might be presented in a form that even a few of the the most calcified will grudgingly accept.

What was this specific advance?

I doubt it is the survival skills of free-falling hamsters which shows up first under http://www.iopblog.org/todays-physics-news-tuesday-17-august-2010/" on the IOP blog.

 

[granpa]

for those that don't know, the topic is:

I was watching a HORIZON program on the BBC a few days ago about big bang theory and how the old notion of there being a singularity that exploded with no consideration of time before that, and how this is now being torn apart by new theories etc.

But my question is about when do you guys think the next real leap forward will be in physics and science knowledge as a whole?

Are we missing a single piece of maths that will open doors or missing some specific decive that we need to measure something important?
Will the HADRON collider and the possible evidence of the Higgs Boson prove to be the key?


It seems to me these days that science progression has levelled out and is waiting for some new 'thing' to happen. (Or maybe its because I've not been paying much attention to detail over the past number of years since leaving uni) ;)

 

[newage4energy]

My prediction is that sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, a theory of quantum gravity will be found that explains a lot more open questions than it creates.

This will be the start of the next big leap forward in physics.

Very good point made. Many say that closed system Newtonian has run its course and the new is in quantum.

 

[newage4energy]

Is there any information on what it might be? BTW, you said "theoretical"... Is there any indication it will not stay theoretical only?

Good questions, and Id really like to see how they accept something revolutionary. Despite all the changes in technology, people have a very complacent side and comfort zone.