A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

stevevw said:

If there was a genetic basis we would all be thinking the same or we could not suddenly change our thinking and beliefs yet we can.

Click to expand...

A predisposition for attribution to hidden agency can be - and is - realised in many different ways. That's why we don't all think the same, but also why beliefs in hidden agency, from nature spirits to pantheons of gods are so common.

That's not how I understand the articles. The predisposition comes before any influence from culture or indoctrination.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm saying. Religious belief is the result of cultural influences on the predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency.

What the papers have found is something different. They talk about a sophisticated level of thinking and not some deep seated evolutionary influence that drives people at a sub-conscience level. Children can tell the difference between human made ideas and those of divine concepts relating to the afterlife and how the material world came about.

Click to expand...

OK, you'll need to give me the links to the relevant papers, because there was nothing about that in the newspaper article you linked to.

Speedwell said:

Then why do those ideas vary so much with culture as well?

Click to expand...

Because people can still be indoctrinated by their culture and that includes being influenced not to believe. But belief in divine concepts seems to be a natural inbuilt way of thinking from birth before any influence from outside sources. Culture and societal influences comes along later to change things.

stevevw said:

Because people can still be indoctrinated by their culture and that includes being influenced not to believe. But belief in divine concepts seems to be a natural inbuilt way of thinking from birth before any influence from outside sources. Culture and societal influences comes along later to change things.

Click to expand...

So if these "divine concepts" of yours are innate they must be universal. What are they, specifically?

stevevw said:

I disagree as some of the articles I posted show that scientists can use experiments to see what happens when our constants are slightly changed.

Click to expand...

That's not the same thing as calculating the probabilities thereof.

Once again, I agree that if things were different then things would be different. That's not the argument here.

They don't need to know all that.

Click to expand...

Yes they do, if we're talking about probability calculations.

Where are the questions. I must have missed them.

Click to expand...

Post #612: A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

Why would the scientists above claim they can perform these tests on what happens when physical constants are changed. Their work is presented in valid peer reviewed scientific papers.

Click to expand...

You're conflating two different things. I'm not talking about whether or not scientists can model different universes.

I'm talking about whether scientists can calculate the probability of our universe's existence. It's the latter that scientists cannot do because a) they don't have the information necessary to do so and b) it's irrelevant because we know our universe exists.

Thus anytime you bring up the "odds" of our universe's existence (e.g. post #592) you're referring to something that is simultaneously unknown (for pre-hoc probability) and irrelevant from a post-hoc perspective.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

A predisposition for attribution to hidden agency can be - and is - realised in many different ways. That's why we don't all think the same, but also why beliefs in hidden agency, from nature spirits to pantheons of gods are so common.

Click to expand...

Belief in divine concepts is the common belief but as you said it can be realized in different ways. We don't all think the same because we are subject to specific culture and societal influences. But the original belief in divine concepts is there from birth and is not something that comes from any outside influence. The fact that belief in spirits to pantheons of gods is so common is testament to this fact.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Religious belief is the result of cultural influences on the predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency.

Click to expand...

But the papers distinguished a difference between human made attributions and an innate belief in divine concepts. There it is not the result of purely cultural influences from an evolutionary perspective.

OK, you'll need to give me the links to the relevant papers, because there was nothing about that in the newspaper article you linked to.

Click to expand...

OK
Religion: Bound to believe?
Religion: Bound to believe?
Children are born believers in God, academic claims
Children are born believers in God, academic claims
Are Children “Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

pitabread said:

That's not the same thing as calculating the probabilities thereof.
Once again, I agree that if things were different then things would be different. That's not the argument here.
Yes they do, if we're talking about probability calculations.

Click to expand...

The point is with those experiments they showed even a slight variation caused a big change which lead to the type of stars that would produce the elements for life not evolving. So we dont have to establish any probability fields because any slight variation to the physical parameters will be enough.

Post #612: A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

Click to expand...

Ok these questions are more or less the same as you are asking now and I am giving the same answers again as above. So we are going around in circles. I agree the odds for each individual constant may not be possible to establish. But as I said the experiments seems to show that any variation to the existing values of certain constants (the fundamental ones) will lead to a universe that cannot sustain life. So there seems to be no wiggle room from what the experiments show. In that sense the odds are high against there being any alternate values

You're conflating two different things. I'm not talking about whether or not scientists can model different universes.

I'm talking about whether scientists can calculate the probability of our universe's existence. It's the latter that scientists cannot do because a) they don't have the information necessary to do so

Click to expand...

The scientists did particular experiments on the fundamental constants. If their experiments show that any slight change will not allow the type of stars that produce the elements for life then this is pretty black and white in showing the odds are not good. They don't even have to go into the odds as any change is not good according to the experiments.

and b) it's irrelevant because we know our universe exists.

Click to expand...

Yes and that's the point. The fact that these fundamental constants could have been something else but fell in a specific range is what the fine tuning argument is about. It speaks about a special situation that seems to all line up to create life. Admittedly the experiments are only done on some constants and not all but it seems to be pointing that way. I am sure further tests can be done which will support the case or maybe they won't so I guess time will tell.

Thus anytime you bring up the "odds" of our universe's existence (e.g. post #592) you're referring to something that is simultaneously unknown (for pre-hoc probability) and irrelevant from a post-hoc perspective.

Click to expand...

So if experiments can be done that show all of the constants can vary and needed to be a specific value to allow our universe would that make a case for fine tuning despite post hoc arguments. If a person avoids a disaster by doing certain things instead of what would have led to the disaster cannot they look back and say they were lucky.

VirOptimus said:

Ferrous Cranus

Click to expand...

So how do you reconcile with this comment you made
A ”creative agent” can never be part of science and is the same argument as ”magic”.

and then agreeing with this comment from 46AND2 around 4 hours later when he said
"There could, maybe, be a possible construction of a hypothetical "creative agent" which is logically sound"

All I have been trying to do is say that a creative agent can be a reasonable and logical hypothesis. I am not saying God is verified through the science so I cannot see what the big deal is.

Speedwell said:

So if these "divine concepts" of yours are innate they must be universal. What are they, specifically?

Click to expand...

They are universal by the fact that most humans seek something beyond the material whether that be aliens, angels, witchcraft, religion, mysticism, new age belief, Buddhism, Masons etc. I have my own personal belief as to what this is but that is not relevant here. So lets just say individuals will probably explain this according to their own views/beliefs. But those individual beliefs are based on a common belief about divine concepts that originates in the subconscious as though we are born with this.

stevevw said:

...But the original belief in divine concepts is there from birth and is not something that comes from any outside influence. The fact that belief in spirits to pantheons of gods is so common is testament to this fact.

Click to expand...

Nope - Once more: the predisposition to attribution of hidden agency is present from birth. The wide variety of hidden agent beliefs - only some of which are divine - supports that divine and other supernatural entity concepts are a development of this, not fundamental.

OK
Religion: Bound to believe?
Religion: Bound to believe?

Click to expand...

I'll just quote from that:

It clearly says that conceptualizing spirits and gods is a step which follows from childhood imaginary relationships. It doesn't mention what is thought to be present from birth, so it isn't particularly relevant apart from that.

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

Click to expand...

I already addressed this - the quotes from Dr. Barrett don't support the specific claims in the article - not surprising as it was written by a religious correspondent - but Barrett's indirect quotes support my thesis that concepts of spirits and gods develop in childhood out of a predisposition to attribute purposeful agency:

Are Children “Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature

Click to expand...

This is the same old story - supporting my view:


Here it says that the description of children as “intuitive theists”—disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman design, only has explanatory value and relevance once they're 5 years old...

So your links are contradicting rather than substantiating your case.

stevevw said:

They are universal by the fact that most humans seek something beyond the material whether that be aliens, angels, witchcraft, religion, mysticism, new age belief, Buddhism, Masons etc. I have my own personal belief as to what this is but that is not relevant here. So lets just say individuals will probably explain this according to their own views/beliefs. But those individual beliefs are based on a common belief about divine concepts that originates in the subconscious as though we are born with this.

Click to expand...

Yes, they believe innately in purpose. But what purpose, whose purpose are socially and culturally determined. There is no innate predilection for divine purpose.

stevevw said:

So how do you reconcile with this comment you made
A ”creative agent” can never be part of science and is the same argument as ”magic”.

and then agreeing with this comment from 46AND2 around 4 hours later when he said
"There could, maybe, be a possible construction of a hypothetical "creative agent" which is logically sound"

All I have been trying to do is say that a creative agent can be a reasonable and logical hypothesis. I am not saying God is verified through the science so I cannot see what the big deal is.

Click to expand...

Yes, you preach but have no substance in your arguments. See post you quoted.

stevevw said:

OK that's good to hear. I think it depends. I think this type of debate can attract strong atheism which is opposed to any hint of a creative agent.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I have very rarely come across any strong atheism (assuming you define it as the claim to KNOW there is no god, or makes the assertion that no gods exist) arguments in the nearly 20 years I have been discussing religion online. I have, however, seen the rejection of many a Christian claim be mistaken for strong atheism by the Christian speaker.

stevevw said:

So we dont have to establish any probability fields because any slight variation to the physical parameters will be enough.

Click to expand...

Yes you do, if you want to claim that you can calculate a probability thereof.

Ok these questions are more or less the same as you are asking now and I am giving the same answers again as above.

Click to expand...

Your answer was that scientists have the answer even thought they don't.

In that sense the odds are high against there being any alternate values

Click to expand...

Nope. You don't get to arbitrarily declare whether or not the odds are "high" without even knowing what those odds might be. That's not how this works.

We've established that you (e.g. scientists) cannot calculate the odds and that's all I wanted to establish. Any such claim about the probability of our universe is not based on anything.

stevevw said:

So we dont have to establish any probability fields because any slight variation to the physical parameters will be enough.

Click to expand...

But you haven't established any of the following:

1. The physical parameters are variable. Although we have a single value for each parameter in our universe, we can hypothesize about what would happen if those values were different. But the part you completely fail to grasp is that those hypotheses rely on an assumption - that the parameters are, if fact, variable. Please explain, in your own words, why it is a reasonable assumption.
2. If the parameters are variable, what is the range of variability? If the values can only vary by, say, 5% that is a whole different ballpark to variation of 10 million%
3. Following on from 2 above, how granular is that variability? I.e. how many possible values are there? If there are only 5 possible values that is a whole different ballpark to 10 million possible values.
4. Are the parameters independently variable, or are they interdependent? There is, for example, an argument that all the parameters are dependent on the cosmological constant.

Given the above, the pre-hoc probability of our universe being as it is could have been anywhere from 1:1 to 1:Infinity. Your bald assertion that "it was highly improbable" is completely meaningless until such time as you establish the above.

The scientists did particular experiments on the fundamental constants. If their experiments show that any slight change will not allow the type of stars that produce the elements for life then this is pretty black and white in showing the odds are not good. They don't even have to go into the odds as any change is not good according to the experiments.

Click to expand...

The "experiments" are actually simulations and mathematical modelling. They demonstrate, hypothetically, what the outcome could have been IF the values had been different.

And that bolded "IF" is something you really need to understand.

pitabread said:

Yes you do, if you want to claim that you can calculate a probability thereof.

Click to expand...

But what if any variation means no life. In other words the values have to stay what they are.

Your answer was that scientists have the answer even thought they don't.

Click to expand...

Then what did the scientists mean when they said their tests showed a slight variation meant no stars no life.

Nope. You don't get to arbitrarily declare whether or not the odds are "high" without even knowing what those odds might be. That's not how this works.

Click to expand...

Then what was the purpose of the experiments that showed variations in constants would lead to no life.

We've established that you (e.g. scientists) cannot calculate the odds and that's all I wanted to establish. Any such claim about the probability of our universe is not based on anything.

Click to expand...

Then what would be required to establish the probability. And why do scientists give probability odds.

Bungle_Bear said:

But you haven't established any of the following:

1. The physical parameters are variable. Although we have a single value for each parameter in our universe, we can hypothesize about what would happen if those values were different. But the part you completely fail to grasp is that those hypotheses rely on an assumption - that the parameters are, if fact, variable. Please explain, in your own words, why it is a reasonable assumption.

Click to expand...

The experiments the scientists did were based on our existing standard model of physics. That was the basis. They first calibrated things to reflect how the existing constant works. Then they made adjustments accordingly showing that even a slight variation led to no life giving stars hense no life. This is the same way experiments in the LHC can replicate the physics of the big bang.

If the parameters are variable, what is the range of variability? If the values can only vary by, say, 5% that is a whole different ballpark to variation of 10 million%

Click to expand...

The experiments showed even a slight variation was enough. There was little room for any variation.

Following on from 2 above, how granular is that variability? I.e. how many possible values are there? If there are only 5 possible values that is a whole different ballpark to 10 million possible values.

Click to expand...

For the constants they tested there is very little variation. I will have to go back and find the exact numbers but it was emphasized very slight variation was enough to lead to a breakdown.

Are the parameters independently variable, or are they interdependent? There is, for example, an argument that all the parameters are dependent on the cosmological constant.

Click to expand...

I will have to check that one. As far as I know each was done independently.

Given the above, the pre-hoc probability of our universe being as it is could have been anywhere from 1:1 to 1:Infinity. Your bald assertion that "it was highly improbable" is completely meaningless until such time as you establish the above.

Click to expand...

Ok fair enough I will have to check things out further. Besides I know that things are not 100% certain and that there needs to be further investigation and have said this all along. But that is what a hypothesis is about. We make certain assumptions and then try to test them out. All I am saying is that it is reasonable and fair to consider fine tuning as there are some things that are pointing that way. If tests show part of the way that some constants are finely tuned then surely this is a reasonable basis to make further inquiry rather than reject the hypothesis out of hand.

The "experiments" are actually simulations and mathematical modelling. They demonstrate, hypothetically, what the outcome could have been IF the values had been different.

And that bolded "IF" is something you really need to understand.

Click to expand...

The results from the experiments are not a case of IF but as far as the experiments are concerned they are conclusive. You have to remember like a lot of theory and claims today no direct tests can be done so the only way we can verify things is through these sorts of experiments. If they use these methods to validate other ideas and theories then why not for these constants.

Why would the scientists and papers make these claims

A well understood and well-tested theory of fundamental physics (Quantum Field Theory — QFT) predicts contributions to the vacuum energy of the universe that are ,10120 times greater than the observed total value.The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
or
Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence.
After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
or
One can indeed perform physics tests of this rather abstract [AP] statement for specific processes like element generation. This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature,"
or
This "effective field theory" is formulated on a complex numerical lattice that allows the researchers to run simulations that show how particles interact.
Lee adds, "This work is valuable because it gives us a much better idea of the kind of 'fine-tuning' nature has to do in order to produce carbon in stars."

VirOptimus said:

Yes, you preach but have no substance in your arguments. See post you quoted.

Click to expand...

So according to 46AND2 "There could, maybe, be a possible construction of a hypothetical "creative agent" which is logically sound" . But according to you I haven't found that sound and logical construction of a creative agent yet. Fair enough. At least there may be one to be found somewhere.

stevevw said:

So according to 46AND2 "There could, maybe, be a possible construction of a hypothetical "creative agent" which is logically sound" . But according to you I haven't found that sound and logical construction of a creative agent yet. Fair enough. At least there may be one to be found somewhere.

Click to expand...

Talk about quotemining!

Why dont quote all of 46AND2:s post?

And his and mine points are very much compatible.

stevevw said:

But what if any variation means no life. In other words the values have to stay what they are.

Click to expand...

That isn't the case. The range of variation is small compared to the range of values assumed to be possible.