DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

AND the article goes on to say, how, in larger macro systems, quantum effects would be averaged out to insignificance. 

"humans and other large multicellular organisms, however, such molecular quantum effects should be averaged out to insignificance—but their meaningful manifestation within far smaller bacteria would not be too shocking. “I’m a little torn about how surprising [this finding] is,” Gröblacher says. “But it’s obviously exciting if you can show this in a real biological system.”

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at once. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

And here is how the article ends: "But getting to the bottom of this requires starting small. The research has steadily been climbing toward macrolevel experiments, with one recent experiment successfully entangling millions of atoms. Proving the molecules that make up living things exhibit meaningful quantum effects—even if for trivial purposes—would be a key next step. By exploring this quantum–classical boundary, scientists could get closer to understanding what it would mean to be macroscopically quantum, if such an idea is true."

[Rahn127]

AND the article goes on to say, how, in larger macro systems, quantum effects would be averaged out to insignificance. 

"humans and other large multicellular organisms, however, such molecular quantum effects should be averaged out to insignificance—but their meaningful manifestation within far smaller bacteria would not be too shocking. “I’m a little torn about how surprising [this finding] is,” Gröblacher says. “But it’s obviously exciting if you can show this in a real biological system.”

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at one. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

I don't believe you exist.
I think you're just a 1st generation AI language bot that some 13 year old cobbled together using christain forum replies.

It's why this thread is nearing 700 pages.
Bots don't get tired of spewing crap.

[Everena]

I am not a troll and I don't have to use any excuses since I have won every debate on here hands down, by anyone's standards. You refuse to apply simple logic, you constantly claim that science proves things that it doesn't. You have no understanding of what evolution actually is, and you use it such a way that would make the scientific community cringe at your utter ignorance. You couldn't define the goals of science even if you wanted to, because really you have no idea what science even is. To you it is just a tool you use to defend being atheist. And FYI- Science does not even attempt to explain the whys of our existence. Science seeks to discover how an already existing and operating universe works. And they do that in order to make advancements intended to improve our lives and further our understanding. The fact that evolution and the age of the earth didn't match exactly with what Christians thought at that time, does not mean it any way disproves God or the fact that Higher intelligence created this universe.

---

Don't be concerned, it backfired on them and atheism is again on the decline while even Europe is seeing in upswing in belief again.

1.Yes you are a troll
I am not a troll. This forum states that theists are welcome here.

2. It's is an excuse I don't need an excuse for being logical.

3. You have soundly lost every debate thus far by anyone's standard Not if it was judged by any intelligent educated person.

4.Actually the scientfic community would cringe at your ignorance Nope, and if you think so. prove it. Show me where I was wrong regarding science and prove it.

5.I claim things science has shown and answered and i know more about science then you ever will  You have no idea what science even really is.

Evolution in particular you instead engage in fallacies and assertions The theory of Evolution has zero to do with whether God exists or not. Darwin even believed in God and only got angry at God when his daughter died.

6. I already answered your why question argument and it's worthless Nope,
1. You can't explain why we have food on this planet for the 7.8 million different species of conscious life (11.7 million if you include plants) and it cannot be logically be written off to chance or luck.

2.You cannot explain how a complex DNA code that uses 2 languages written on top of eachother to form proteins and control our genes, could just create itself from nothing with no intelligence.

3. You cannot explain how life came to be in the first place and abiogenesis is just another unproven hypothesis

4. You cannot explain why we have conscious self-awareness (and neither can science) or how something intelligent and conscious could ever possibly emerge from something that was not conscious or intelligent.

5. You haven't explained why you think mere humans are the highest form of intelligence in 200 billion galaxies.

And no one responded to this article regarding the latest findings regarding DNA. Holy mackerel, what's the matter? Were you having a hard enough time trying to justify how the first language of DNA could have written itself?         https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/...etic-code/

[Bucky Ball]

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at one. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

In post 5986, you said : 
"No, there isn't anything in the article about eternal life. It is about how particles and atoms and now maybe bacteria can exist in 2 places at the same time. They intend to try to apply it to the macro world at some point. Hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.

The article said NOTHING about what you claim. The article was talking about entanglement, NOT superposition, said nothing about entire bacteria. 
YOU purposely, dishonestly, attempted to misrepresent what it said, and was talking about. You are nothing but a lying fool.

1. You can't explain why we have food on this planet for the 7.8 million different species of conscious life (11.7 million if you include plants) and it cannot be logically be written off to chance or luck.

And you can't explain why millions of species starved and died of thirst, drought, famine, and millions of children have also. Your point is 110 % crap. If the food can't be chance, then your evil monster deity PURPOSELY starved millions of babies.
Plants were not initially "food". They evolved and BECAME food to organisms which arose in an environment they could survive in. You really never even took Biology 101 did you ?

[Everena]

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at one. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

I don't believe you exist.
I think you're just a 1st generation AI language bot that some 13 year old cobbled together using christain forum replies.

It's why this thread is nearing 700 pages.
Bots don't get tired of spewing crap.

I'm not a Christian.

[Astreja]

5. You haven't explained why you think mere humans are the highest form of intelligence in 200 billion galaxies.

I'm going to go on record here and say that I don't believe that particular thing. The universe is phenomenally large, and only now is a space probe heading out of this solar system.

Currently there are no verified contacts with any species in any other star system, not even nearby ones like Proxima and Alpha Centauri. It is not yet possible to judge the comparative intelligence of humans relative to other species living in the universe. At most one can say "humans are the highest form of intelligence that we currently know of."

[Everena]

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at one. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

In post 5986, you said : 
"No, there isn't anything in the article about eternal life. It is about how particles and atoms and now maybe bacteria can exist in 2 places at the same time. That is correct and I proved that be correct when I posted almost the entire article yesterday,It is about superposition and quantum entanglement -
They intend to try to apply it to the macro world at some point. Hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
The article said NOTHING about what you claim. 
[b]Everena: False, learn to read soon[/b]
The article was talking about entanglement, NOT superposition, 
[b]Everena: False again and I already proved this all yesterday[/b]
said nothing about entire bacteria. 
YOU purposely, dishonestly, attempted to misrepresent what it said, and was talking about. You are nothing but a lying fool
Everena: You are the only fool in this conversation and I already proved all this yesterday but here is the article in it's entirety



- https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...milestone/


"Schrödinger's Bacterium" Could Be a Quantum Biology Milestone
A recent experiment may have placed living organisms in a state of quantum entanglement
By Jonathan O'Callaghan on October 29, 2018


The quantum world is a weird one. In theory and to some extent in practice its tenets demand that a particle can appear to be in two places at once—a paradoxical phenomenon known as superposition—and that two particles can become “entangled,” sharing information across arbitrarily large distances through some still-unknown mechanism.
Perhaps the most famous example of quantum weirdness is Schrödinger’s cat, a thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. The Austrian physicist imagined how a cat placed in a box with a potentially lethal radioactive substance could, per the odd laws of quantum mechanics, exist in a superposition of being both dead and alive—at least until the box is opened and its contents observed.
As far-out as that seems, the concept has been experimentally validated countless times on quantum scales. Scaled up to our seemingly simpler and certainly more intuitive macroscopic world, however, things change. No one has ever witnessed a star, a planet or a cat in superposition or a state of quantum entanglement. But ever since quantum theory’s initial formulation in the early 20th century, scientists have wondered where exactly the microscopic and macroscopic worlds cross over. Just how big can the quantum realm be, and could it ever be big enough for its weirdest aspects to intimately, clearly influence living things? Across the past two decades the emergent field of quantum biology has sought answers for such questions, proposing and performing experiments on living organisms that could probe the limits of quantum theory.

ADVERTISEMENT
Those experiments have already yielded tantalizing but inconclusive results. Earlier this year, for example, researchers showed the process of photosynthesis—whereby organisms make food using light—may involve some quantum effects. How birds navigate or how we smell also suggest quantum effects may take place in unusual ways within living things. But these only dip a toe into the quantum world. So far, no one has ever managed to coax an entire living organism—not even a single-celled bacterium—into displaying quantum effects such as entanglement or superposition.
So a new paper from a group at the University of Oxford is now raising some eyebrows for its claims of the successful entanglement of bacteria with photons—particles of light. Led by the quantum physicist Chiara Marletto and published in October in the Journal of Physics Communications, the study is an analysis of an experiment conducted in 2016 by David Coles from the University of Sheffield and his colleagues. In that experiment Coles and company sequestered several hundred photosynthetic green sulfur bacteria between two mirrors, progressively shrinking the gap between the mirrors down to a few hundred nanometers—less than the width of a human hair. By bouncing white light between the mirrors, the researchers hoped to cause the photosynthetic molecules within the bacteria to couple—or interact—with the cavity, essentially meaning the bacteria would continuously absorb, emit and reabsorb the bouncing photons. The experiment was successful; up to six bacteria did appear to couple in this manner.
Marletto and her colleagues argue the bacteria did more than just couple with the cavity, though. In their analysis they demonstrate the energy signature produced in the experiment could be consistent with the bacteria’s photosynthetic systems becoming entangled with the light inside the cavity. In essence, it appears certain photons were simultaneously hitting and missing photosynthetic molecules within the bacteria—a hallmark of entanglement. “Our models show that this phenomenon being recorded is a signature of entanglement between light and certain degrees of freedom inside the bacteria,” she says.
According to study co-author Tristan Farrow, also of Oxford, this is the first time such an effect has been glimpsed in a living organism. “It certainly is key to demonstrating that we are some way toward the idea of a ‘Schrödinger’s bacterium,’ if you will,” he says. And it hints at another potential instance of naturally emerging quantum biology: Green sulfur bacteria reside in the deep ocean where the scarcity of life-giving light might even spur quantum-mechanical evolutionary adaptations to boost photosynthesis.
There are many caveats to such controversial claims, however. First and foremost, the evidence for entanglement in this experiment is circumstantial, dependent on how one chooses to interpret the light trickling through and out of the cavity-confined bacteria. Marletto and her colleagues acknowledge a classical model free of quantum effects could also account for the experiment’s results. But, of course, photons are not classical at all—they are quantum. And yet a more realistic “semiclassical” model using Newton’s laws for the bacteria and quantum ones for photons fails to reproduce the actual outcome Coles and his colleagues observed in their laboratory. This hints that quantum effects were at play in both the light and the bacteria. “It’s a little bit indirect, but I think it’s because they’re only trying to be so rigorous in ruling out things and claiming anything too much,” says James Wootton, a quantum computing researcher at IBM Zurich Research Laboratory who was not involved in either paper.

ADVERTISEMENT
The other caveat: the energies of the bacteria and the photon were measured collectively, not independently. This, according to Simon Gröblacher of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who was not part of this research, is somewhat of a limitation. “There seems to be something quantum going on,” he says. “But…usually if we demonstrate entanglement, you have to measure the two systems independently” to confirm any quantum correlation between them is genuine.
Despite these uncertainties, for many experts, quantum biology’s transition from theoretical dream to tangible reality is a question of when, not if. In isolation and collectively, molecules outside of biological systems have already exhibited quantum effects in decades’ worth of laboratory experiments, so seeking out these effects for similar molecules inside a bacterium or even our own bodies would seem sensible enough. In humans and other large multicellular organisms, however, such molecular quantum effects should be averaged out to insignificance—but their meaningful manifestation within far smaller bacteria would not be too shocking. “I’m a little torn about how surprising [this finding] is,” Gröblacher says. “But it’s obviously exciting if you can show this in a real biological system.”
Several research groups, including those led by Gröblacher and Farrow, are hoping to take these ideas even further. Gröblacher has designed an experiment that could place a tiny aquatic animal called a tardigrade in superposition—a proposition much more difficult than entangling bacteria with light owing to a tardigrade’s hundreds-fold–larger size. Farrow is looking at ways to improve on the bacterial experiment; in the next year he and his colleagues hope to entangle two bacteria together, rather than independently with light. “The long-term goals are foundational and fundamental,” Farrow says. “This is about understanding the nature of reality, and whether quantum effects have a utility in biological functions. At the root of things, everything is quantum,” he adds, with the big question being whether quantum effects play a role in how living things work.

Sign up for Scientific American’s newsletters.

It might be, for example, that “natural selection has come up with ways for living systems to naturally exploit quantum phenomena,” Marletto notes, such as the aforementioned example of bacteria photosynthesizing in the light-starved deep sea. But getting to the bottom of this requires starting small. The research has steadily been climbing toward macrolevel experiments, with one recent experiment successfully entangling millions of atoms. Proving the molecules that make up living things exhibit meaningful quantum effects—even if for trivial purposes—would be a key next step. By exploring this quantum–classical boundary, scientists could get closer to understanding what it would mean to be macroscopically quantum, if such an idea is true.


ADVERTISEMENT
Jonathan O'Callaghan is a freelance space and science journalist based in London. You can follow him on Twitter .








[/b].

1. You can't explain why we have food on this planet for the 7.8 million different species of conscious life (11.7 million if you include plants) and it cannot be logically be written off to chance or luck.

And you can't explain why millions of species starved and died of thirst, drought, famine, and millions of children have also. Your point is 110 % crap. If the food can't be chance, then your evil monster deity PURPOSELY starved millions of babies.

Everena: No, the problems here are ours to solve and we are perfectly capable of solving them. We produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. Stop blaming God for what people have chosen to do.
Plants were not initially "food".

Everena: Plants were always food, or nothing would have ever survived genius.

They evolved and BECAME food to organisms which arose in an environment they could survive in. Everena: Bullshit

You really never even took Biology 101 did you ? Everena: I did and you should retake it now.

[Bucky Ball]

Hey fool, it says QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. It's NOT the same as superposition. It does NOT say superposition. 
You really don't get the difference, do you. 
Please stop making a fool of yourself. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona..._of_plants
"The evolution of plants has resulted in a wide range of complexity, from the earliest algal mats, through multicellular marine and freshwater green algae, terrestrial bryophytes, lycopods and ferns, to the complex gymnosperms and  of today"
Plants were not always "food" you ignoramus. LMAO. 
PLEASE, go get yourself at least a GED. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

Some stupidity is incompatible with life. 
https://www.quora.com/Which-evolved-first-plants-or-animals

[GrandizerII]

AND the article goes on to say, how, in larger macro systems, quantum effects would be averaged out to insignificance. 

"humans and other large multicellular organisms, however, such molecular quantum effects should be averaged out to insignificance—but their meaningful manifestation within far smaller bacteria would not be too shocking. “I’m a little torn about how surprising [this finding] is,” Gröblacher says. “But it’s obviously exciting if you can show this in a real biological system.”

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at one. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

If the MWI is true, "you" do exist in other universes/worlds. Either way, you weren't being factual by misquoting that article.

[Everena]

They have proven that atoms and electons can exist in 2 places at one. I am not claiming my actual flesh exists in another universe. You understand that right?

If the MWI is true, "you" do exist in other universes/worlds. Either way, you weren't being factual by misquoting that article.

I was not misquoting the article. I just added my own thoughts to what was in the article. And I posted the link for easy reference.