A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

Well, if it's a bad idea for me to use something that is impossible to verify, does that mean you're stop going to use arguments for God that are impossible to verify - namely, all of them?

I haven't been using arguments to verify God. I have been supporting ID which does not try to prove God and is only concerned with signs of ID in life. If you take an individual sign such as say how living things have inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to produce variation that is directed at specific outcomes rather than any outcome with blind chance evolution then you only have to prove that and not God.

And there is actually some pretty good reasons for accepting the multiverse idea as correct...
What Is (And Isn't) Scientific About The Multiverse
Multiverse: have astronomers found evidence of parallel universes?

As one of the articles you posted says that we cannot verify a multiverse and that it is only used by scientists because there is no better idea at the moment.
That's the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid.

So what? That's not a whole lot, is it? There are plenty of theoretical consequences that are inevitable, but that we cannot know about for certain because we can't test them. The multiverse is one in a long line of those. It's not particularly a useful realization, just an interesting prediction that falls out of these theories.

So why do so many theoretical physicists write papers about the multiverse? About parallel Universes and their connection to our own through this multiverse? Why do they claim that the multiverse is connected to the string landscape, the cosmological constant, and even to the fact that our Universe is finely-tuned for life?

Because even though it's obviously a bad idea, they don't have any better ones.

As it mentions above there are many interesting theoretical ideas that fall out of quantum physics just like a hologram universe or time travel but we don't say they are all verified. As mentioned one of the big reasons scientists like the multiverse idea is that it counters the fine tuning argument but that is not a reason to say that it is true either. Ideas are just hypothesis and it seems the ones associated with quantum physics can have more speculation. But it also reduces the predictability that is required for scientific verification.

One of the founders of Inflation theory Paul Stienhardt says that the cosmic inflation theory is wrong because an inevitable consequence is that it leads to a multiverse. But a multiverse negates the purpose of why inflation theory was developed to address the need for our universe to be smooth and flat. A multiverse negates all this as it introduces many universes that could also consist of any number of conditions that are not smooth and flat. As Stienhardt says
As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

Its raison d’être is to fill a gap in the original big bang theory.
http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
So it was partly formulated to address problems of the big bang theory which it doesn't and now is being used to address the problem of fine tuning.

And you would never use an idea that can't be directly verified, would you?

But that is what some want to do with ideas which stem from quantum physics. If we are going to use ideas like a multiverse or time travel then why not the God hypothesis as we also have indirect evidence for this such as the fine tuning argument which a another unverified idea in a multiverse tried to negate.

Except that ID can never tell us anything scientific about this alleged designer, can it? Seems like a very large flaw in the idea!

Except ID does not set out to verify God. It is only concerned with signs of ID in life and existence.

Well, you seem to be saying that life can only take one form - the kind of life that we see, which requires a universe with certain conditions. You haven't shown this to be true,

For the fine tuned universe for intelligent life that is all we need to show and verify. Both of these have been verified by the science

but even if we accept it, the multiverse theory says it doesn't matter, because conditions for that life are going to arise in one universe, perhaps even more.

Yes that is one reason the multiverse idea is being used because it counters the fine tuning argument. But the point here is that you are using an idea that has not been scientifically verified. If anyone who was trying to support ID used this logic they would be shot down.

Imagine a road with many potholes. An infinite number of potholes, actually. Each pothole is a different size and shape. Since there are an infinite number of potholes, any conceivable pothole must exist somewhere on this road. Each pothole is like a universe. Now, imagine that we have some water that, for some reason, is locked into a particular shape. Can this particular shape-locked water find a hole in the road the exact size and shape to fit it perfectly?

The answer is yes, because every single possible hole exists somewhere on this road.

Likewise, if every possible universe exists, then we must find there there is a universe with the conditions required to support life.

This is not a difficult idea to understand. If you are still having trouble, I'd suggest that you do not have the skills to grasp the ideas required for this discussion.

You don't understand statistics, do you?

I have understood the idea from the start, it is a well known idea to counter the fine tuning argument and I agree if it was verified it would counter the fine tuning argument. But there were 2 issues I had with this. First when you introduced the pothole example it was not about a pothole multiverse. The example was just assuming the water woke up in the right hole and there were no other holes. Second a pothole multiverse or cosmic multiverse has not been verified so is unscientific. All we have is our universe which has been shown to have a number of specific physical conditions that has allowed intelligent life and unlike a multiverse we can measure this directly to verify things. Until we find intelligent life within our universe or in another universe ours is the only one which makes us very special.

It doesn't matter how many possible combinations there are. The chance of winning ios still greater than zero, and it is still possible to win. It is not IMPOSSIBLE. And if you get every single possible ticket, you are guaranteed to have the winning ticket.

Say the lottery works like this. There are a trillion tickets in a barrel, each one numbers with a number from one to a trillion. Each tickets is half of a matching pair, the other half of each ticket being sold to someone who has entered the lottery. Open the barrell, draw a ticket, and whoever has the other half of the ticket wins the prize. So if the number 1,634,297 is drawn, and I happen to be holding the half ticket that has the number 1,634,297, then I win the prize.

The problem is the type of odds we are talking about is way more than the population of the earth. In fact it is way more than the population of a million earths.

The odds of any particular ticket being drawn is going to be a one-in-a-trillion chance. And yet SOME ticket has to be drawn. And if I have purchased every single ticket, then I know that whatever ticket is drawn, the other half of that ticket is going to be in my hand.

Yes but you are hedging the odds. If there is only one universe that's holding the lottery that doesn't work with the fine tuning argument because only one ticket number can be sold and you have to have it out of 1 trillion tickets. But not only one ticket number but around 150 ticket numbers correct and you would have to win the lottery around 23 times in a row. The odds for just the cosmological constant at 1 in 10 to the power of 120 is like piling coins on the US to the moon and then picking the one different coin with one pick. For all the constants to line up as this article mentions it would be 1 in 10 to the power of 234.
For them all to be what they are by random chance is the very unlikely probability of 1 part in 10 to the power of 234. You certainly would not bet on these odds.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?

As Lee Smolin states who is a atheist
Lee Smolin, The life of the Cosmos, page 53:
Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?
So once again luck as in trying to explain things through lottery examples cannot account for the level of improbable odds.

You say you understand the puddle example, but I don't think you do.

Fair enough

You see, the point of the puddle example is that life will adapt to fit the conditions that already exist,

So what if there was only one puddle and the conditions were not conducive for intelligent life. There would be no intelligent life.

yet you are still going on about the idea that life had to be a certain way and the conditions needed to be set prior to life.

Life did have to be a certain way, it has to be intelligent life because that is what the fine tuning argument is about. The conditions do have to be a certain way because only certain conditions will allow intelligent life.

If we don't appeal to a multiverse (which the puddle example doesn't) the conditions need to be set at specific physical constants for intelligent life to come about. If they were slightly different then there would be no intelligent life. Considering that those constants (around 150 in total) could have been set at any level if they came about by random chance then that is an impressive feat. AS shown above impossible odds in the context of any lottery example.

And you are again forgetting about the multiverse theory. If every single possible universe exists, then it's guaranteed that there would be a universe with the conditions we see in this one.

The puddle example does not use a multiverse to hedge the odds. And a multiverse is unscientific as it has not and can never be verified. But only if a multiverse was scientifically verified would it counter a fine tuned universe for intelligent life.

That is the strangest reasoning I've ever heard. If every single possible universe exists, it does NOT mean one of them was fine tuned.

Then why do scientist use the multiverse example to counter the fine tuning argument for intelligent life. I would say because one of the universes (ours) has intelligent life. So the multiverse then makes our fine tuned universe not so special as there would be all other varying conditions from a fine tuned one to a totally non-fined tuned one and everything in between.

 

[stevevw]

Then I fear you have understood it incorrectly. There is nothing in evolution that states that life forms MUST evolve to be more complex.

I am not talking about what evolution should or should not do. I am merely referring to the papers which are saying that the complexity we do see came from non -adaptive mechanisms and not natural selection or at least a minimal influence of natural selection acting on random mutations.

EES in itself is not proof of ID, it simply shows that there is more to evolution than genes being passed on.

Maybe not but it shows that rather than evolution being a blind and random process it has direction. Living things were made with the ability to vary themselves and/or vary environments. That diminishes Neo-Darwinisms influence and/or directs what it can and cannot do. This can be said to be a sign of design as it is like a mechanism in any designed product such as a computer running software with built in programs that allow new applications and variations .[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

I am sorry to see that you have learned absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution during this discussion. Do you even want to?

Yes please do so.

Correct. Why do you need the same outcomes to happen? Why do you want a guarantee? Evolution did not produce the Earth.

Because if evolution cannot guarantee the same outcome then one of those outcomes could be no intelligent life that is able to know God. Just like scientists talk about life on other planets could be different and strange. As scientists work with random chance when talking about our universe if the parameters for our universe were not set to turn out to be the specific physical conditions we have for intelligent life then we would have no guarantee of an earth type planet and no guarantee of the sort of life if any we would have.

The theory of evolution is a biological theory and has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth. How do you know that evolution will not eventually converge on some sort of creature with self-aware intelligence? It did in the one example we have.

Yes it did because the fine tuning for the universe allowed this. Scientists acknowledged the fine tuning for intelligent life. They use random chance as the measure and thats why they use a multiverse idea to counter fine tuning as it introduces varying physical conditions that will produce all sorts of situations that may produce different types of life or no life. But if there is only one universe then this points to ours being finely tuned to produce the specific life we have rather than being subject to blind chance which could have caused us to end up with a universe hostile to life. .

 

[Kylie]

I haven't been using arguments to verify God. I have been supporting ID which does not try to prove God and is only concerned with signs of ID in life. If you take an individual sign such as say how living things have inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to produce variation that is directed at specific outcomes rather than any outcome with blind chance evolution then you only have to prove that and not God.

Of course, whatever intelligence you claim is either God or an alien, in which case we need to explain where that came from if not for intelligent design. You don't seem to understand that the only way you can avoid an infinite regress is to eventually claim Goddidit, so Intelligent design just doesn't work unless you eventually resort to God.

As one of the articles you posted says that we cannot verify a multiverse and that it is only used by scientists because there is no better idea at the moment.
That's the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid.

So what? That's not a whole lot, is it? There are plenty of theoretical consequences that are inevitable, but that we cannot know about for certain because we can't test them. The multiverse is one in a long line of those. It's not particularly a useful realization, just an interesting prediction that falls out of these theories.

So why do so many theoretical physicists write papers about the multiverse? About parallel Universes and their connection to our own through this multiverse? Why do they claim that the multiverse is connected to the string landscape, the cosmological constant, and even to the fact that our Universe is finely-tuned for life?

Because even though it's obviously a bad idea, they don't have any better ones.

As it mentions above there are many interesting theoretical ideas that fall out of quantum physics just like a hologram universe or time travel but we don't say they are all verified. As mentioned one of the big reasons scientists like the multiverse idea is that it counters the fine tuning argument but that is not a reason to say that it is true either. Ideas are just hypothesis and it seems the ones associated with quantum physics can have more speculation. But it also reduces the predictability that is required for scientific verification.

One of the founders of Inflation theory Paul Stienhardt says that the cosmic inflation theory is wrong because an inevitable consequence is that it leads to a multiverse. But a multiverse negates the purpose of why inflation theory was developed to address the need for our universe to be smooth and flat. A multiverse negates all this as it introduces many universes that could also consist of any number of conditions that are not smooth and flat. As Stienhardt says
As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

Its raison d’être is to fill a gap in the original big bang theory.
http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
So it was partly formulated to address problems of the big bang theory which it doesn't and now is being used to address the problem of fine tuning.

You know, if you're going to start demanding direct evidence of a multiverse, I'm going to start demanding direct evidence of an intelligent designer.

But that is what some want to do with ideas which stem from quantum physics. If we are going to use ideas like a multiverse or time travel then why not the God hypothesis as we also have indirect evidence for this such as the fine tuning argument which a another unverified idea in a multiverse tried to negate.

So now you ARE arguing for God? Make up your mind please!

Except ID does not set out to verify God. It is only concerned with signs of ID in life and existence.

And all it is capable of doing is saying, "I can't imagine how this could have happened unless it was designed, so there must have been a designer.

For the fine tuned universe for intelligent life that is all we need to show and verify. Both of these have been verified by the science Yes that is one reason the multiverse idea is being used because it counters the fine tuning argument. But the point here is that you are using an idea that has not been scientifically verified. If anyone who was trying to support ID used this logic they would be shot down.

AND you must show that it only had one chance to get the universe right, which you have not done.

I have understood the idea from the start, it is a well known idea to counter the fine tuning argument and I agree if it was verified it would counter the fine tuning argument. But there were 2 issues I had with this. First when you introduced the pothole example it was not about a pothole multiverse. The example was just assuming the water woke up in the right hole and there were no other holes.

So you ASSUME that there's only one pothole just like you ASSUME that there's only one universe. Once again you make that mistake!

Second a pothole multiverse or cosmic multiverse has not been verified so is unscientific. All we have is our universe which has been shown to have a number of specific physical conditions that has allowed intelligent life and unlike a multiverse we can measure this directly to verify things. Until we find intelligent life within our universe or in another universe ours is the only one which makes us very special.

And yet you can't disprove it either, so you are not warranted in making the claim that you are right by default.

The problem is the type of odds we are talking about is way more than the population of the earth. In fact it is way more than the population of a million earths.

So?

Yes but you are hedging the odds. If there is only one universe that's holding the lottery that doesn't work with the fine tuning argument because only one ticket number can be sold and you have to have it out of 1 trillion tickets. But not only one ticket number but around 150 ticket numbers correct and you would have to win the lottery around 23 times in a row. The odds for just the cosmological constant at 1 in 10 to the power of 120 is like piling coins on the US to the moon and then picking the one different coin with one pick. For all the constants to line up as this article mentions it would be 1 in 10 to the power of 234.
For them all to be what they are by random chance is the very unlikely probability of 1 part in 10 to the power of 234. You certainly would not bet on these odds.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?

As Lee Smolin states who is a atheist
Lee Smolin, The life of the Cosmos, page 53:
Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?
So once again luck as in trying to explain things through lottery examples cannot account for the level of improbable odds.

What makes you think you only get one chance to get the winning ticket? You are - ONCE AGAIN - making the mistake of thinking there is only one chance of getting it right. If every possible universe that can exist DOES exist, then there is every possible chance that a universe with the laws we see in our universe will exist.

So what if there was only one puddle and the conditions were not conducive for intelligent life. There would be no intelligent life.

And once again you make the mistake of assuming there is only one chance.

You really must stop doing that.

Life did have to be a certain way, it has to be intelligent life because that is what the fine tuning argument is about. The conditions do have to be a certain way because only certain conditions will allow intelligent life.

And once again, say it with me - if every possible universe exists, then a universe with the conditions right for life is certain.

If we don't appeal to a multiverse (which the puddle example doesn't) the conditions need to be set at specific physical constants for intelligent life to come about. If they were slightly different then there would be no intelligent life. Considering that those constants (around 150 in total) could have been set at any level if they came about by random chance then that is an impressive feat. AS shown above impossible odds in the context of any lottery example.

Once again, you don't seem to understand statistics.

Once again, you make the unwarranted assumption that there was only one chance.

The puddle example does not use a multiverse to hedge the odds. And a multiverse is unscientific as it has not and can never be verified. But only if a multiverse was scientifically verified would it counter a fine tuned universe for intelligent life.

Once again, the puddle example is used to show that life adapts to whatever conditions are present. It is used to show that life is fluid and can adapt. You are assuming life is fixed and can only be one way, despite never showing any evidence to support this claim.

And again, you are rather hypocritical if you are going to dismiss the multiverse idea because it hasn't been verified while at the same time arguing for an idea which every reputable scientist has dismissed as unverifiable.

Then why do scientist use the multiverse example to counter the fine tuning argument for intelligent life. I would say because one of the universes (ours) has intelligent life. So the multiverse then makes our fine tuned universe not so special as there would be all other varying conditions from a fine tuned one to a totally non-fined tuned one and everything in between.

What are you talking about?

You said the multiverse idea requires the fine tuning argument. It does not. Remember the lottery? You do not need to rig the drawing mechanism in a certain way to make sure one particular number is drawn if you have every single ticket. Because it doesn't matter what number is drawn.

 

[Kylie]

I am not talking about what evolution should or should not do. I am merely referring to the papers which are saying that the complexity we do see came from non -adaptive mechanisms and not natural selection or at least a minimal influence of natural selection acting on random mutations.

I honestly do not think you understand what you are talking about.

It doesn't matter where the traits themselves come from, but if the traits are disadvantageous, then natural selection will select against them. I don't know of anything that will stop natural selection from acting - do you?

Maybe not but it shows that rather than evolution being a blind and random process it has direction.

Why do you keep using this strawman?

EVOLUTION IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN RANDOM.

Living things were made with the ability to vary themselves and/or vary environments. That diminishes Neo-Darwinisms influence and/or directs what it can and cannot do. This can be said to be a sign of design as it is like a mechanism in any designed product such as a computer running software with built in programs that allow new applications and variations .

All you are saying here is that life forms can change. I won't argue with that, I've been saying the same thing.

However, you seem to have this notion that life forms can change because they were intelligently designed to do so, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support this.

 

[stevevw]

None of these are predictions of ID.

In order to have a scientific prediction of ID, you first need a proper model of ID with which to derive said predictions. And such a model will include plausible process by which ID is effected which then serves to derive predictions of the output of said process.

No such model for ID currently exists. What you are seeing in the above list is a mish-mash of creationist claims, ideas/buzzwords taken from ID literature and post-hoc rationalization in absence of said ID model.

ID has a model. For example for DNA it is specified info or functional info. It states that DNA is like letters and written language or symbols such as in a computer code. This type of info is hard to create with a blind and random process. Many evolutionary scientists acknowledge that a living cell has machine like processors and that DNA is like a code or language.

 

[pitabread]

ID has a model. For example for DNA it is specified info or functional info. It states that DNA is like letters and written language or symbols such as in a computer code. This type of info is hard to create with a blind and random process. Many evolutionary scientists acknowledge that a living cell has machine like processors and that DNA is like a code or language.

What you describe is an analogy, not a scientific model.

Often times analogies are used to explain concepts, which is why you'll see things like DNA compared to a language for example. It's easier to explain how it functions if it's compared to something someone is already familiar with.

However, DNA is neither a language nor computer code. It's bio-chemistry.

When I say ID needs a model, I'm talking about an approximation of the process for design itself. It should serve to illustrate how life forms are allegedly design or modified by an intelligent agent. It should describe the inputs, the process, the constraints, and the output.

Such a model can be used to derive predictive outputs based on the process. IOW, it should help answer the following: if this is how Intelligent Design works, this is what we should expect to see as a result.

Now I'll save you the trouble of searching, because in all my perusing of ID literature such a thing does not current exist. ID proponents are too caught up in trying to argue for intelligent design that they haven't stopped to figure out how intelligent design is supposed to even work. And for those that already believe the designer is an all-powerful supernatural being, the question is arguably moot because science doesn't deal with the supernatural.

 

[Speedwell]

ID has a model. For example for DNA it is specified info or functional info. It states that DNA is like letters and written language or symbols such as in a computer code. This type of info is hard to create with a blind and random process.

How do you know that?

 

[stevevw]

Of course, whatever intelligence you claim is either God or an alien, in which case we need to explain where that came from if not for intelligent design. You don't seem to understand that the only way you can avoid an infinite regress is to eventually claim Goddidit, so Intelligent design just doesn't work unless you eventually resort to God.

Do you have to prove who did a rock carving or just prove it was made by something intelligent as opposed to say wind or water erosion.

You know, if you're going to start demanding direct evidence of a multiverse, I'm going to start demanding direct evidence of an intelligent designer.

So now you ARE arguing for God? Make up your mind please!

Actually I am not asking for direct evidence for a multiverse or trying to prove God directly but simply saying that using ideas that cannot be directly verified as you are with the multiverse to counter fine tuning is like someone trying to prove God with indirect evidence. So I am actually acknowledging the futility of trying to prove the unverifiable whether that be a multiverse of God.

And all it is capable of doing is saying, "I can't imagine how this could have happened unless it was designed, so there must have been a designer.

Whether God or an alien or some other god or entity we don,t know about is responsible does not matter. ID is concerned with processes and verifying those processes scientifically so a god cannot enter the equation as this cannot be verified scientifically.

AND you must show that it only had one chance to get the universe right, which you have not done.

yes. That is what it comes down to. Or for science to show that directly that there is a multiverse. But at the moment all we have is one universe we know of.

So you ASSUME that there's only one pothole just like you ASSUME that there's only one universe. Once again you make that mistake!

As far as I know the pothole analogy is based on one pot hole. The original example does not specify that there were other potholes out there in some multiverse. Remember they cannot use other potholes within the same universe as this is not the same as a fine tuned universe for intelligent life. There is not mention of other planets in our universe with intelligent life.

And yet you can't disprove it either, so you are not warranted in making the claim that you are right by default.

That sounds a lot like what some say counter when others say God cannot be proven in saying that God cannot be disproved either.

What makes you think you only get one chance to get the winning ticket? You are - ONCE AGAIN - making the mistake of thinking there is only one chance of getting it right. If every possible universe that can exist DOES exist, then there is every possible chance that a universe with the laws we see in our universe will exist.

But just like on our planet and in our universe we are betting on our particular physical settings any other planet in another universe will be betting on their specific physical settings. So each of these bets will be betting on a completely different outcome. So we can only take our particular situation if we are to access the odd correctly. Why would we for example want to bet on some unverifiable planet in an non unverifiable universe on a situation we have in our universe and visa versa.

And once again you make the mistake of assuming there is only one chance.

You really must stop doing that.

But the puddle example is only speaking about one chance isn't it. If it is speaking about some puddle multiverse can you show me where it mentions this.

And once again, say it with me - if every possible universe exists, then a universe with the conditions right for life is certain.[/quote] You forgot that I stated if we don't appeal to a multiverse then life and the conditions have to be a certain way.
I see where the confusion is coming from. I understand the concept of a multiverse and that is not the issue. The puddle example is not based on a multiverse but you are injecting one into it. We are going back and forth between fine tuned and multiverse. I keep saying that you cannot use a multiverse to counter fine tuning because it is unverified but you keep using it. It is a circular argument.

Once again, the puddle example is used to show that life adapts to whatever conditions are present. It is used to show that life is fluid and can adapt. You are assuming life is fixed and can only be one way, despite never showing any evidence to support this claim.

It seems I am now repeating myself. The puddle example does not use a multiverse idea. So it does not explain how the specific physical conditions that the fluid life adapted to got there as opposed to the many other settings for the physical parameters. You keep introducing the multiverse idea into the puddle example when it is not based on this. If it is can you show me or are you just assuming this. I think the puddle is only based on being on planet earth and only in our universe. But please correct me if I am wrong.

And again, you are rather hypocritical if you are going to dismiss the multiverse idea because it hasn't been verified while at the same time arguing for an idea which every reputable scientist has dismissed as unverifiable.

Which idea am I arguing for that scientists have dismissed.

What are you talking about?

You said the multiverse idea requires the fine tuning argument. It does not.

Actually it was the other way around. I said the fine tuning argument requires a multiverse to counter it and that's why scientists use it.

Remember the lottery? You do not need to rig the drawing mechanism in a certain way to make sure one particular number is drawn if you have every single ticket. Because it doesn't matter what number is drawn.

yes I remember but what you forgot was that the lottery did not work and I linked a couple of well known atheist scientists to support that. ie

For them all to be what they are by random chance is the very unlikely probability of 1 part in 10 to the power of 234. You certainly would not bet on these odds.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?

As Lee Smolin states who is a atheist
Lee Smolin, The life of the Cosmos, page 53:
Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?
So a lottery is not going to explain these extremely high odds of it happening.

If you are thinking about bringing in the multiverse idea again and then having a lottery on each planet and in each universe it still won't work as each will be subject to the same odds and will not be a combined effort as each is betting on the physical conditions of their own universe and not ours. They don't even know our universe exists. It just spreads the problem. besides we are getting into non-scientific areas now. And I am not trying to verifying God

 

[stevevw]

How do you know that?

Through probability. There are billions and billions probably even more of possible combinations that are wrong and non-functional. There are only very rare ones that are right. That's only for simple sequences. More complex sequences will be even harder.

 

[stevevw]

What you describe is an analogy, not a scientific model.

Often times analogies are used to explain concepts, which is why you'll see things like DNA compared to a language for example. It's easier to explain how it functions if it's compared to something someone is already familiar with.

However, DNA is neither a language nor computer code. It's bio-chemistry.

When I say ID needs a model, I'm talking about an approximation of the process for design itself. It should serve to illustrate how life forms are allegedly design or modified by an intelligent agent. It should describe the inputs, the process, the constraints, and the output.

Such a model can be used to derive predictive outputs based on the process. IOW, it should help answer the following: if this is how Intelligent Design works, this is what we should expect to see as a result.

Now I'll save you the trouble of searching, because in all my perusing of ID literature such a thing does not current exist. ID proponents are too caught up in trying to argue for intelligent design that they haven't stopped to figure out how intelligent design is supposed to even work. And for those that already believe the designer is an all-powerful supernatural being, the question is arguably moot because science doesn't deal with the supernatural.

So you are saying that God has no intelligence in his creation. That he designs by blind chance in the hope that things will turn out right.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you have to prove who did a rock carving or just prove it was made by something intelligent as opposed to say wind or water erosion.

You have to have some notion of how it was incised.

Whether God or an alien or some other god or entity we don,t know about is responsible does not matter. ID is concerned with processes and verifying those processes scientifically so a god cannot enter the equation as this cannot be verified scientifically.

You have suggested no process, so you offer nothing which can be verified.

Actually it was the other way around. I said the fine tuning argument requires a multiverse to counter it and that's why scientists use it.

You assume a motivation which is not present. "Fine tuning" is a metaphysical argument which science has no need to counter.

 

[Speedwell]

Through probability. There are billions and billions probably even more of possible combinations that are wrong and non-functional. There are only very rare ones that are right.

Right for what? For exactly the biosphere we have now? Here is your post-hoc fallacy once again.

That's only for simple sequences. More complex sequences will be even harder.

I'm not sure what "hard" means in this context. How "hard" it is for a stochastic process to exhaust a sequence space?

 

[pitabread]

So you are saying that God has no intelligence in his creation. That he designs by blind chance in the hope that things will turn out right.

Huh? I'm not sure how this follows from my post.

To recap, I was talking about the fact that in order to have a model of intelligent design, there needs to be an attempt to approximate the process of intelligent design. Without a process, you can't have a model, and without a model you can't have any sort of predictive outputs.

This goes back to that list of "predictions" of ID you posted that are in fact not predictions of ID at all.

Also for the record, I don't believe there is a god in the way you believe there is a god. Any speculation around the existence of a supernatural deity and/or their motivations isn't relevant to the context of my posts.

 

[pitabread]

Do you have to prove who did a rock carving or just prove it was made by something intelligent as opposed to say wind or water erosion.

If ID proponents can ever provide something like the below with respect to the design of biological organisms, then they'll finally have something worth talking about.

(This is an in-progress picture of the carving of Mt. Rushmore. Illustrates how and by whom such carvings were done.)

 

[stevevw]

You have to have some notion of how it was incised.

we see that this has been designed and recognize it from other rocks that are not carved like this right away. Yet we can see similar workings in life which even evolutionists acknowledge is design but it is said to only mimic design. Design you have when you don't have design.

(This is an in-progress picture of the carving of Mt. Rushmore. Shows by whom and how such carvings were done.)



You have suggested no process, so you offer nothing which can be verified

what about this

or this

or this

You assume a motivation which is not present. "Fine tuning" is a metaphysical argument which science has no need to counter.

Then why do many scientists say it is incredible and propose the multiverse to counter it.

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. Paul Davies
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Stephen Hawking defended a naturalistic explanation of fine-tuning in terms of the multiverse hypothesis.
If that's the case then it was something that he acknowledge and thought needed a counter explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok so this is more about the design or lack of design rather than who the designer is. That is what I mean, we can investigate

Those are entertaining cartoons, but they give us no hint that intelligent design is being undertaken in an identifiable way.

 

[stevevw]

Those are entertaining cartoons, but they give us no hint that intelligent design is being undertaken in an identifiable way.

Identifiable way. they sure look like amazing and very well coordinated machinery that appear designed. Just like we recognize design in Mt Rushmore we should be able to recognize design in a living cell. So you do not think God had anything to do with creating the first living cell. It just happened, Oh and here's picture of the real flagella similar to the cartoon. Also from the picture above of the machinery in a living cell the video that this come from states that they are animated replica of the real thing.

 

[pitabread]

what about this

or this

or this

Those are human-made animations/diagrams of biological structures.

What do those have to do with how life forms were created?

 

[Speedwell]

fair enough but they sure look like amazing and very well coordinated machinery that appear designed. Just like we recognize design in Mt Rushmore we should be able to recognize design in a living cell. So you do not think God had anything to do with creating the first living cell.

Functional complexity is not evidence of intelligent design. Mt. Rushmore "looks designed" from a distance, but to make sure you have to look up close for evidence of human production--tool marks, principally. In other words, you have to be able to determine how the carvings were produced.

All you have argued so far is that the theory of evolution as it stands cannot explain biological complexity. But you cannot explain it either, except to say "it must have been intelligently designed" which is no explanation at all.