A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

Kylie · Sep 28, 2019

stevevw said:
Yeah here is the link to the post Thursday at 11:56 PM#382

I shall repeat my question:

Can you cut and paste the relevant quotes from the articles?

Not link me to your post, but cut and paste words from the articles that support what you are saying.

Please read what I said carefully and answer the question I am actually asking, not the question you think I am asking.

stevevw · Sep 29, 2019

Speedwell said:
That's not a naturalistic presupposition, it's a fact. Life happens to exist because the physical constants just happen to be where they are to permit life. Why they happen to be where they are is not a question which science addresses. If you want to attribute it to a particular deity, go right ahead, but you will get no support from science in trying to convince anyone who has a different cause in mind.

Then why does the same science state that if the specific physical parameters that produced life were not the way they are then there would have been no intelligent life. Why do they propose multiverses to counter the fine tuning argument if it was not an issue. It all stems from the same science. Their calculations are the ones that show any slightest variation on our physical constants will have produced a different outcome. It is these calculations that show the big bang was a chance event that could have produced any possible outcome. But it happened to produce just one specific one that produced intelligent life.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 29, 2019

stevevw said:
Then why does the same science state that if the specific physical parameters that produced life were not the way they are then there would have been no intelligent life.

Science doesn't say that.

Why do they propose multiverses to counter the fine tuning argument if it was not an issue.

Multiverses were not proposed to 'counter the fine tuning argument', but they are a potential explanation (if unsatisfying).

Their calculations are the ones that show any slightest variation on our physical constants will have produced a different outcome.

No, they don't.

It is these calculations that show the big bang was a chance event that could have produced any possible outcome. But it happened to produce just one specific one that produced intelligent life.

No; we can only say that the big bang produced intelligent life; you're making unjustified assumptions on a self-selected sample of one, i.e. the Weak Anthropic Principle is tautologous, it doesn't justify any arguments.

stevevw · Sep 29, 2019

Kylie said:
I shall repeat my question:

Can you cut and paste the relevant quotes from the articles?

Not link me to your post, but cut and paste words from the articles that support what you are saying.

Please read what I said carefully and answer the question I am actually asking, not the question you think I am asking.

Fair enough but I understood what you were asking. The link I was referring to already had the quotes cut out. I though it would save me the hassle of repeating something I had already done.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.

There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

So it seems that the evidence shows that natural selection is actually a hindrance to the evolution of organismal complexity.

The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html

Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory
A central point to be explained in this book is that most aspects of evolution at the genome level cannot be fully explained in adaptive terms, and moreover, that many features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection. This contention is supported by a wide array of comparative data, as well as by well-established principles of population genetics.
Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

Does Evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The standard evolutionary theory is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Speedwell · Sep 29, 2019

"Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not driven by natural selection alone. Many aspects of evolutionary change are indeed facilitated by natural selection, but all populations are influenced by nonadaptive forces of mutation, recombination, and random genetic drift. These additional forces are not simple embellishments around a primary axis of selection, but are quite the opposite—they dictate what natural selection can and cannot do."

Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

This is a pretty good succinct statement of Modern Synthesis. Lynch appears to be building a straw man, but I don't see quite why.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 29, 2019

stevevw said:
...So it seems that the evidence shows that natural selection is actually a hindrance to the evolution of organismal complexity.

Who said that natural selection should promote organismal complexity? If you look around you, you'll see a world of vast numbers of relatively simple creatures, with numbers reducing dramatically with increasing complexity.

It doesn't seem unreasonable, at first glance, that when selection pressures are reduced, there is more opportunity for wider variation in the population, including more complexity.

SLP · Sep 30, 2019

stevevw said:
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
...Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. ...
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

I think one of the issues here is one of interpretation and scale.
HGT is not at all common in larger multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals. Much more common in prokaryotes and some plants.
From my own work (molecular phylogenetics of primates), I know that such confounding factors have no impact whatsoever. Years ago, I was tasked with analyzing subsets of a large dataset (at the time it was considered large - today? a week of work) we had produced in my lab. I did things like cut out and analyze only coding sequence, cut out and analyze only noncoding sequence, cut out the LINE sequence we had found, and analyze the coding and noncoding data, etc.
All of the analyses produced the same tree, albeit with differing levels of confidence depending on which subsets of data were used. Trees that match those produced using morpholgy, biogeograpghy, etc.

Mountain meet molehill.

Kylie · Sep 30, 2019

SLP said:
From my own work (molecular phylogenetics of primates)...

Just out of curiosity, what are your qualifications in this field?

stevevw · Oct 1, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Science doesn't say that.

There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”

Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)

Multiverses were not proposed to 'counter the fine tuning argument', but they are a potential explanation (if unsatisfying).

They are a non-verifiable explanation.

No, they don't.

Please refer to the above links where scientists state that any slight variation will produce a different outcome where there is no life ie
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

No; we can only say that the big bang produced intelligent life; you're making unjustified assumptions on a self-selected sample of one, i.e. the Weak Anthropic Principle is tautologous, it doesn't justify any arguments.

The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned. Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ie
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

Bungle_Bear · Oct 1, 2019

stevevw said:
There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”

Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)

They are a non-verifiable explanation.

Please refer to the above links where scientists state that any slight variation will produce a different outcome where there is no life ie
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned. Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ie
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

Until such time as anyone demonstrates that the values could be different in reality the whole fine tuning argument is a non-starter.

How do you know that the charge of an electron could be different to what it is? You don't.

How do you know that any other value in physics could have been different? You don't.

The fine tuning argument is meaningless without knowledge we do not possess.

stevevw · Oct 1, 2019

pitabread said:
That's not quite what the puddle argument is saying. The puddle argument is an example of post-hoc reasoning; namely that because the puddle exists, therefore the hole must have been made for its existence.

The fine tuning argument is exactly that: the universe permits intelligent life to exist, therefore the universe must have been designed to support intelligent life.

If the hole didn't exist (indeed if no holes existed), there would be no puddles to wonder about why they fit so nicely in those holes. Likewise if the universe didn't permit the conditions that allow intelligent life to exist, there would be no intelligent life sitting around and contemplating its existence.

It's because the universe permits intelligent life that intelligent life is able to exist. It's not the other way around. The fine tuning argument tries to make it the other way around which is why the fine tuning argument is logically flawed (post hoc reasoning).

Then why do so many scientists acknowledge the fine tuning of the universe for life. They acknowledge that the physical parameters have to be finely tuned to a narrow point on the dial and any change of the dial will produce something different including no life. So the puddle argument is begging the question and a circular argument. It assumes what it want to prove without giving any argument for why the many physical constants are set at a specific setting on the dial.

Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.

A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested. The basic structure looks like this:

1. A is true because A is true
Or the Universe must be suitable for life because we have life and because we have life the universe must be suitable for life. Or the hole must of been made for the puddle because the puddle fits the hole.

stevevw · Oct 1, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
Until such time as anyone demonstrates that the values could be different in reality the whole fine tuning argument is a non-starter.

How do you know that the charge of an electron could be different to what it is? You don't.

How do you know that any other value in physics could have been different? You don't.

The fine tuning argument is meaningless without knowledge we do not possess.

They know because they know physics and when those physical conditions are changed it will have an effect. Like gravity what goes up must come down. But change its setting and it will change the effects as we see with zero gravity in space or when they calculate the gravity on other planets as being heavier etc. Change its value and things begin to either fly apart of lump together. It is math and they use this to calculate the gravitational effect for when they launch rockets with their trajectories.

The gravitational constant (also known as the universal gravitational constant, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, or the Cavendish gravitational constant),[a] denoted by the letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of gravitational effects in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Gravitational constant - Wikipedia

It is the same for all the other physical constants. If you want to dispute the math then you are disputing the very science used for many of the verified theories and physical makeup of our world and universe.

This article has many of the physical constants with linked papers showing how they are fine tuned and how any changes will affect them
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Bungle_Bear · Oct 1, 2019

stevevw said:
They know because they know physics and when those physical conditions are changed it will have an effect. Like gravity what goes up must come down. But change its setting and it will change the effects as we see with zero gravity in space or when they calculate the gravity on other planets as being heavier etc. Change its value and things begin to either fly apart of lump together. It is math and they use this to calculate the gravitational effect for when they launch rockets with their trajectories.

The gravitational constant (also known as the universal gravitational constant, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, or the Cavendish gravitational constant),[a] denoted by the letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of gravitational effects in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Gravitational constant - Wikipedia

It is the same for all the other physical constants. If you want to dispute the math then you are disputing the very science used for many of the verified theories and physical makeup of our world and universe.

This article has many of the physical constants with linked papers showing how they are fine tuned and how any changes will affect them
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Uh huh. You completely missed the point. Here's a challenge for you:

Demonstrate that any of the values in your fine tuning argument can actually be different to what they are.

I'm not asking for hypotheticals, I want evidence of actual differences.

In short - demonstrate that an alternative universe is possible in reality, not just on paper. If you cannot, your argument is meaningless.

SLP · Oct 1, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
Until such time as anyone demonstrates that the values could be different in reality the whole fine tuning argument is a non-starter.

How do you know that the charge of an electron could be different to what it is? You don't.

How do you know that any other value in physics could have been different? You don't.

The fine tuning argument is meaningless without knowledge we do not possess.

Why bother with all that when the supposed OPINIONS of famous people are easier to find?

pitabread · Oct 1, 2019

stevevw said:
. So the puddle argument is begging the question and a circular argument. It assumes what it want to prove without giving any argument for why the many physical constants are set at a specific setting on the dial.

That's whole point of the puddle arguments. It demonstrates why the fine tuning argument is flawed.

If you're seeing flaws in the puddle argument, that's a good thing! Now just apply the same to the fine tuning argument and you're set. :oldthumbsup:

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 1, 2019

stevevw said:
There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”

Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)

I couldn't help noticing that none of those links & quotes correspond to your original statement. They all talk either of a small range of values or just express surprise that the universe is the way it is.

There are a number of other problems with the FTA,not least of which is that we don't know what the possible values of those constants are, or how constant they are, nor whether they are interdependent, nor the range of values that could support some form of life. The Weak Anthropic Principle is a caution - any life will find itself in a universe capable of supporting life like itself, but that says nothing about other possible life.

They are a non-verifiable explanation.

That's why it is unsatisfying.

Kylie · Oct 1, 2019

stevevw said:
There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Unlikely does not mean impossible.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo

Unlikely does not mean impossible.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Argument from incredulity does not make a valid argument.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Unlikely does not mean impossible.

Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”

Unlikely does not mean impossible, and argument from incredulity does not make a valid argument.

Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)

"Seem."

They are a non-verifiable explanation.

So is intelligent design, but you don't let that stop you.

The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned. Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ie
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

How do you go from Hawking saying it SEEMS like it to concluding that it MUST BE?

46AND2 · Oct 1, 2019

Kylie said:
Unlikely does not mean impossible.

Unlikely does not mean impossible.

Argument from incredulity does not make a valid argument.

Unlikely does not mean impossible.

Unlikely does not mean impossible, and argument from incredulity does not make a valid argument.

"Seem."

So is intelligent design, but you don't let that stop you.

How do you go from Hawking saying it SEEMS like it to concluding that it MUST BE?

To be fair, typically when scientists use the term "unlikely" it is much stronger than the colloquial use. Such as when they say it is "unlikely" that we share ERV's through independent insertions.

Not that I'm defending his position. I think post-hoc probability arguments are worthless--one could come up with astronomical odds that you, personally, were born. And you'd only have to go back a few generations to do it.

stevevw · Oct 1, 2019

pitabread said:
That's whole point of the puddle arguments. It demonstrates why the fine tuning argument is flawed.

If you're seeing flaws in the puddle argument, that's a good thing! Now just apply the same to the fine tuning argument and you're set.

You cannot apply the puddle example to the fine tuning argument. The flaws in the puddle example are that it is a circular argument. It assumes what it wants to argue and does not explain or give reason why the puddle fits the hole so well. Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance. The details of those explanations can be found in what I have posted.

46AND2 · Oct 1, 2019

stevevw said:
You cannot apply the puddle example to the fine tuning argument. The flaws in the puddle example are that it is a circular argument. It assumes what it wants to argue and does not explain or give reason why the puddle fits the hole so well. Whereas the fine tuning argument explains how the many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance. The details of those explanations can be found in what I have posted.

It does explain why the puddle fits so well, it just doesn't explicitly state it because it is inherently obvious. Indeed, it's the point of the analogy, to demonstrate through triviality the weakness of the fine tuning argument.

If that hole was minutely different, it would not contain THAT puddle. i.e. the puddle of those dimensions. The puddle argument ALSO explains (through sensible implication) that "many constants fall within a narrow range of possibilities through chance" to hold that puddle.

A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

Defeater of Illogic

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Defeater of Illogic

inquisitive

Whoot!

inquisitive

inquisitive

Whoot!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

inquisitive

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Similar threads