A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

Despite this assertion, the probability space is not known. The post hoc view you quote is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, find a credible source which says otherwise.

OK here are a couple

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. 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
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASA...29..529B

Studies confirm the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. This is something most mainstream scientists support as it helps solve the problem of the missing matter in the universe that holds everything in place. Yet it has to be unbelievably fine tuned beyond the point of a chance happening.
Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right | Space

Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes about how the setting of the cosmological constant with quantum fluctuations within the first split seconds of the big bang had to be very precise otherwise we would not have the universe we have today.
"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)

That's a lot of noise avoiding the issue: There is no such thing as specified complexity.

Fair enough. Do you think something like a protein could have specified info in that it has very precise folds.

 

[stevevw]

No. In any case, you can't show it. You really have no idea what range of physical conditions will allow life to develop and diversify. No one does.

Then why do scientists speak about physical constants such as the cosmological constant being so finely tuned at 10 to the power of 120. If this was slightly different it would not produce a universe for intelligent life. This is a vital part of Einsteins relativity and though Einstein initially had it as a fudge factor it is now being verified. The fine tuning has been shown even at the very instant the big bang happens so that it produces what we see today

That is one of the reasons science is so interested in discovering if there is life elsewhere than the Earth.

But it is not just any life but intelligent life which needs specific conditions to come about. We need to find intelligent life somewhere else in our universe to show that the earth itself is not the only place this can happen. So most who support the fine tuning argument base it on earth being the only place intelligent life exists and if this was the case hen we can make a case for there being an intelligent agent behind things.

In any case, the supposed "fine tuning" of the environment is not the topic. We are talking about the mechanism by which life diversifies and develops in an environment where it is possible.

Fair enough.

It's not my "opinion;" that's how design is detected by everyone who looks for it.

Sorry I may have missed the post where you posted how we detect design. How is design detected by those who look for it.

 

[stevevw]

No need for that - the shadiness of the scammers involved was sufficient to make their claims suspect. Plus - open access journal....

I thought an open access journal is a good thing as it invites other scientists to scrutinize the paper.

 

[Speedwell]

...then we can make a case for there being an intelligent agent behind things.

Why would you want to do that? Isn't faith enough for you?

Sorry I may have missed the post where you posted how we detect design. How is design detected by those who look for it.

This has been gone over several times. We detect design by indications of agency--tool marks, mold lines, the use of non-natural or refined materials, by the recognition of forms which do not normally appear in nature--that kind of thing.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is a common misconception that people have when I bring up or question the standard theory. They assume that I am denying evolution (natural selection) entirely. There is no middle ground either it should be fully supported or I am accused on completely denying things. That is not the case and you can go over all my posts and see that. I am saying that despite natural selection living things still become diseased. I am not saying this because I think that selection should produce perfection. Rather to give some perspective and balance.

I am at a loss to understand why you imagine I think you are denying evolution. I am treating, specifically, your nonsensical comments on natural selection and disease.

Your mention of it is completely unnecessary. No biologist, that I am aware of, in the last century and a half has ever suggested otherwise than what you point. So in what way are you restoring balance? Perspective? You are giving a completely pointless, irrelevant perspective. I mean, if it is your intention to repeatedly state the blindingly obvious then I am wasting my time reading your posts.

All I am trying to explain is that evolution is more complex than many say. Too much natural emphasis is placed on selection and random mutations.

And yet you base this observation upon a handful of examples, from the hundreds and thousands one might present, that identify, analyse, categorise, discuss and present those very complexities. You might stand a better chance of making your argument if you presented some examples of these supposed individuals (groups? whatever) who insist upon the simplicity of evolution.

In my professional education, evolution was never presented as being simple. It was never presented as a "done deal". The Modern Synthesis existed, but so do did a host of unanswered questions, questions that have been answered in part by such matters as hox genes, evo-devo, niche selection and so forth.

Edit: modified 1st sentence to make it clearer.

 

[Speedwell]

I thought an open access journal is a good thing as it invites other scientists to scrutinize the paper.

All it does is allow papers to be presented to the public without review by other scientists.

 

[Ophiolite]

All it does is allow papers to be presented to the public without review by other scientists.

You are mistaken. Open access papers are available without any payment on the part of the reader. The open access status is independent of peer review. An increasing number of peer reviewed journals are offering at least a proportion of their papers as open access.

 

[Speedwell]

You are mistaken. Open access papers are available without any payment on the part of the reader. The open access status is independent of peer review. An increasing number of peer reviewed journals are offering at least a proportion of their papers as open access.

Right. I forgot that part as I have a university connection and don't pay anyhow.

 

[Ophiolite]

Right. I forgot that part as I have a university connection and don't pay anyhow.

Now you have just made me jealous!

 

[SLP]

I thought an open access journal is a good thing as it invites other scientists to scrutinize the paper.

You thought wrong - in many if not most cases, it is the opposite..

Open access journals often have very low standards are are more about making money.
This is why I have seen papers in which the abstract contradicts the conclusion of the paper. This is why I have seen papers with such broken English so as to make it appear as though it was a hoax submission. Etc.

Where I work, only a handful of such journals 'count' as valid publication venues in terms of tenure.

 

[SLP]

delete

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If we roll a set of dice and they come up with a certain number 500 times in a row. The odds become too great to have happened by chance. It is not about measuring specified complexity itself but about showing it could not have happened by random chance and therefore the results are specified and also complex depending on what it is being measured.

That's incorrect in that no sequence of dice probability even specified in advance is 'too great to have happened by chance'. The most you can say is that it is extremely unlikely to have happened by chance.

However, you're actually using retrospective probability which is meaningless because you don't know how many other variations were possible.

To take a leaf out of Xinghua's playbook, it's like someone seeing a modern car for the first time, and marvelling at how someone could have been so clever to have come up with all the different amazing inventions in it, and make them all work; that he knew how to make every part simple, efficient, and reliable, knew what the best materials were to make them affordable, and figured out how put them all together into a car that functioned simply, efficiently, and reliably - what an incredible genius! She asks to meet the great man...

Then you show her the history of the motor car and all the various inventions that went into it; all the makes and models that led up to the modern version, all the failures, all the problems that were overcome, all the tweaks and improvements, and she realises that there is or was no 'great man', just a long sequence of improvements and refinements on a simple palanquin or litter.

E.T.A. At this point it also becomes clear to the observer that the car is still far from perfect, and at innumerable points in this long process of development, any of the components could have been made slightly differently and/or arranged slightly differently without significantly affecting the simplicity, efficiency, reliability, or affordability; IOW there was an unimaginably vast variety of cars that could have resulted from this process.

 

[stevevw]

You thought wrong - in many if not most cases, it is the opposite..

Open access journals often have very low standards are are more about making money.
This is why I have seen papers in which the abstract contradicts the conclusion of the paper. This is why I have seen papers with such broken English so as to make it appear as though it was a hoax submission. Etc.

Where I work, only a handful of such journals 'count' as valid publication venues in terms of tenure.

According to wiki and other sites open access is free access and it is also peer reviewed which means papers are open to evaluation by others.

Open access
Open access (OA) is a mechanism by which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost or other barriers,[1] and, in its most precise meaning, with the addition of an open license that removes most restrictions on use and reuse.[1]

The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature."[2]
Open access - Wikipedia

Accordingly peer review maintains quality standards and provides credibility.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.
Peer review - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to wiki and other sites open access is free access and it is also peer reviewed which means papers are open to evaluation by others.

Open access
Open access (OA) is a mechanism by which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost or other barriers,[1] and, in its most precise meaning, with the addition of an open license that removes most restrictions on use and reuse.[1]

The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature."[2]
Open access - Wikipedia

Accordingly peer review maintains quality standards and provides credibility.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.
Peer review - Wikipedia

"There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip"; the aspirations of the open access movement for peer review are not necessarily realised in practice.

 

[SLP]

You are mistaken. Open access papers are available without any payment on the part of the reader. The open access status is independent of peer review.

Depending on the journal, review is often sketchy or even non-existent.

An increasing number of peer reviewed journals are offering at least a proportion of their papers as open access.

Yes, and they tend to have basic standards. Many do not. I mentioned earlier a paper I have seen in which the Abstract contradicted the actual conclusions of the paper.
Thinking that was not reviewed very well, if at all.

 

[SLP]

According to wiki and other sites open access is free access and it is also peer reviewed which means papers are open to evaluation by others.

Bio-Complexity claims to be peer-reviewed, too. The peers that review their submissions? Members of the DI.

Open access
Open access (OA) is a mechanism by which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost or other barriers,[1] and, in its most precise meaning, with the addition of an open license that removes most restrictions on use and reuse.[1]

The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature."[2]
Open access - Wikipedia

Accordingly peer review maintains quality standards and provides credibility.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.
Peer review - Wikipedia

Wonderful.

That does not match my experience.
The freedom of cost is to the reader, not the submitter. I have, in the past couple of years, received solicitations from 3 or 4 open access journals that indicated, in essence, that for a low low fee of between $250 and $700, I could have my research published within 10 days or a couple of weeks.
And these were OAJs that did not even have a focus related to my work. These were just blasts to anyone with a .edu email address, I suppose. I doubt such OAJs had very high standards.

And any OAJ that wold let something co-authored by Fernandez in is suspect right off the bat, in my book.

 

[SLP]

I thought an open access journal is a good thing as it invites other scientists to scrutinize the paper.

All journal pubs are open to scrutiny.

 

[SLP]

Then why do scientists speak about physical constants such as the cosmological constant being so finely tuned at 10 to the power of 120. If this was slightly different it would not produce a universe for intelligent life.

Why does the muddy water in a puddle speak about how the size of the hole it is in matches its volume perfectly?

 

[stevevw]

All journal pubs are open to scrutiny.

I agree but I think because there is no cost for the reader it makes it easier for more people to get access to the paper to scrutinize it.

 

[stevevw]

Why does the muddy water in a puddle speak about how the size of the hole it is in matches its volume perfectly?

We went through that scenario earlier in this thread. As I mentioned then that example does not address the fine tuning. It just assumes because we are here the right conditions must also be present otherwise we would not be here. It is a circular argument. If we say the shape of the hole are the many fine tuned parameters and the water is intelligent life because the water is fluid it will conform to whatever shape the hole is. But that does not determine the conditions needed for intelligent life. It is saying any condition is suitable for producing intelligent life which is not the case. For intelligent life to exists it has to have a specific hole as opposed to any hole.