I do not make decisions about who is right and wrong I let the evidence and science do that, I simply outline the best argument I can answering all points which is why I was getting headspins from ImagingGeek jumping all over the shop and he was the only one insisting anyone was wrong, I believe I was still defining things before even getting back to the argument. I believe I pointed out a few factual wrong that science had decided were incorrect it wasn't my personal view.
As for QM having all the answers then you don't understand QM at all because it has zero answers, I repeat it is merely a description of how to make sense of the world around us. It gives exactly zero idea in it's current form as what process is causing these things you need some theory beyond QM for that.
QM is a bit like a cartography or other mapping disciplines it doesn't answer tell you anything other than the lay of the land. To that end it can be useful because it can map out things that are not easy to see or go against classic logic like light passing thru both slits simultaneously, QM sheds no light on why it behaves like that it just simply describes that it does.
I believe that is about the fifth or six time I have said that and yet you still try and insist that I am trying to use QM to answer something. So if you want to denegrate me to being a student that is always trying to be right, what is someone that can't seem to grasp the obvious no matter how many times they are told?
The only thing QM is useful for is as a map it can tell you when you are lost and when you are on the right path thats all it can do. Infact most of the checking of QM is doing absurdly crazy things that shouldn't work in the classic physics but using the QM map says should happen.
You say I am trying to tell you how evolution works that is incorrect I have not a clue why it works I am describing what it is doing from a QM perspective and that is a piece of information that people may not have realised. It seems I was not alone in realizing that fact there are alot of smart people around.
Initially you all started attacking me that I was wrong and there was something wrong with me and I was being argumentative. Next I got the QM stops at macro size crap from you guys which has long been dealt with by science and settled. Now I get the personal attack and tirade because I dare to assert that there is a mismatch between the QM calculation (which someone else also did as a check) and a stupid classical theory.
As I said countless times I do not think there is anything dramatically wrong with evolution theory I think they misunderstand the energetics that is all and that is probably no surprise because under classic physics you can't even answer what energy is and where it comes from and goes to ... I believe we did the dance over energy.
Now you ask and made the first sensible comment in your little dummy spit ... that is does the QM perspective say anything useful and does it say anything testable and the answer is yes on both fronts.
The energetics should be testable because the genetic sequence should quantum walk being a classic flat earther you will have no idea what that is so I will explain via an easily testable experiment.
Here is your basic experiment:
Take a litre of water in a tank and in one side of it drop 1 molecule of luciferase, into the other side of ATP molecule. Luciferase + ATP is the photonic reaction in a firefly
The chemical reaction catalyzed by firefly luciferase takes place in two steps:
luciferin + ATP => luciferyl adenylate + PPi
luciferyl adenylate + O2 => oxyluciferin + AMP + light
Classic Expectation:
The speed of the molecules vibrations will be around 600 m/sec as a sort of average temperature number. If you divid the size of the molecules versus the size of the water it should take around 10 years on average before you ever see a flash of light.
Quantum Expectation:
The moment the molecules enter the water they will sense each other thru there energetics and because they test all paths simultaneously. They will then quantum walk towards each other they will meet within minutes on average.
These days you can even track individual molecules so you could visually watch it happen. Try it very simple experiment and there is no classical explaination for it.
They started it with photons
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/17/photon-pairs-take-a-quantum-walkMoved it to atoms
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310083836.htmhttp://arstechnica.com/science/2009/07/cesium-atoms-are-able-to-take-a-quantum-walk/Then on to molecules
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/7/073050Then shown in organics molecules
http://jcp-bcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpbcp/v2/i11/p11B603_s1?Assuming QM energetics is playing a part in genetics the genomes will quantum walk and there is simply no classical explaination for that ... so test it .... pretty basic really.
There are already hints it can do it but it's not conclusive I want to see a full quantum walk.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htmAssuming it does quantum walk then our calculations are correct and you have definitely got some small problems to fix in classical evolution.
QM won't answer why the above is would be happening other than saying it is acting like everything else in the universe but QM is most always testable, it's not like abstract string theory. Your complaint about it being complex is because QM says the map of the universe is that complex we have no idea why it is blame that on god if you so desire.
If you wanted to go further you could then try isolating up the mathematics for a number of individual effects under the fittness criteria and see what holds and is possibly able to be described by QM. That is sort of how QM prized out the 40 odd physics parameters that seem to define the universe ... its called painstaking and exacting science testing.
