A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[Bungle_Bear]

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. The experiments showed even a slight variation was enough. There was little room for any variation. 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. I will have to check that one. As far as I know each was done independently.
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 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."

You pretty much avoided dealing with any of the points I raised. I get the impression you don't really understand the points made as you consistently avoid answering them and then quote articles which support my point and don't support yours. For example:

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,

Notice the part in bold? They perform simulations, they do not change the values in our universe. Indeed, one of your other articles says the values do not change in our universe. I'm pretty sure you will miss the point being made again.

 

[46AND2]

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.

That post was written in such a way as to show skepticism that it could be done, but an open mind to the possibility, however small. I've heard a lot of descriptions of "creative agents," but not all of them. I've yet to hear one that is cogent.

It should also not be construed as support for your idea that

All I have been trying to do is say that a creative agent can be a reasonable and logical hypothesis.

In fact, it is a testament of my opinion of the opposite.

And indeed, all attempts to do so that I have heard are, as VirOptimus has said, akin to magic. My post was similar to his post, without the definitive tone.

 

[pitabread]

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

And what if they do? That doesn't tell us anything about the probability thereof.

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

They probably meant what they said. I can't speak for them though.

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

Probably to show what they show. I mean, it sounds like you're trying to read into these sorts of modeling or simulations beyond than what they show. Some times things mean what they mean at face value.

Then what would be required to establish the probability.

I already listed some of the things needed to determine the probability space of what you are trying to calculate (go back and re-read the earlier posts where I list that series of questions of things we don't know).

And why do scientists give probability odds.

Depends on the context. Most of the time when it comes to arguing for design (via the fine tuning arguments) probabilities are thrown around to razzle-dazzle the audience.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... why do scientists give probability odds.

Because putting numbers to such things feels like achieving something, and maybe it helps focus the mind. The same happens with the Drake equation, with equal justification.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I'll just quote from that:

"From childhood, humans form enduring, stable and important social relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased relatives, unseen heroes and fantasized mates.
...
It is a small step from having this capacity to bond with non-physical agents to conceptualizing spirits, dead ancestors and gods..."
​

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.

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:

"...experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.
...
Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design."​

This is the same old story - supporting my view:

"From infancy, we are, then, excellent ‘‘agency detectors’’
...
Separate bodies of research suggest that young children have a broad tendency to reason about natural phenomena in terms of purpose and an orientation toward intention-based accounts of the origins of natural entities.
...
A review of research on children's concepts of agency, imaginary companions, and understanding of artifacts suggests that by the time children are around 5 years of age, this description of them may have explanatory value and practical relevance."​

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.

Then why would Barrett quote
“all this evidence supports that children are born believers”.

You have misread what the paper. The evidence shows that the attributions children make are different from human made attributions like those mentioned by evolution or from cultural or societal influences. The children’s attributions are a unique way of thinking that is unlike how humans think when attributing divine concepts to the material world.

When the paper mentions that infants make imaginative friends and unseen heroes this is just the way infants under 5 articulate things. Around the age of 5 they can think in more sophisticated ways about divine beliefs. So as the papers have mentioned children are more inclined to divine thinking from birth. Here is the evidence to support this from Barrett's other papers and additional articles on the subject.
Barrett states
From infancy one strategy to understand the world is "promiscuous teleology" (Kelemen) we seek purpose even where it does not exist. From an early age child give "intelligent design" - final purpose explanations for a range of phenomenon. 12month old babies know that agents create order (Newman and Keil).
So as opposed to 5 year old he states that 12 month old can also attribute agents that create order like a creative agent.

Another paper from Barrett and others explains how some have assumed that children use their idea of human agency to make attributions about non-human agents. But says children have their own way of reasoning about God that is not based on human attributions which supports what I was saying.
“young children do not reason about God’s beliefs in human terms.” Children seem innately able to think about God in ways that are different from how they think about other people.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0364021303001071

Barrett also says that this happens well before 5-year old’s, so your quote is out of context. Three-year old are just learning language let alone being able to learn sophisticated divine thinking.
Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-old’s attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions.
Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

Other papers support this including ones that reference Barrett. They suggest that even 12 months can already attribute goal direction to non-human agents and that they do this from 12 months and it is unlike the way older adults attribute belief.
Research now suggests that rather than being anthropomorphic, children’s earliest concept of agency is abstract, and is invoked by a range of nonhuman entities from the time when overt signs of children’s sensitivity to mental states are becoming increasingly robust. Thus, 12-month-old infants will follow the ‘‘gaze’’ of faceless blobs as long as they have engaged in contingent interaction with them (S.C. Johnson, Booth, & O’Hearn, 2001) and will attribute goal directedness to computer-generated shapes (e.g., Csibra & Gergely, 1998). By 15 months, infants will complete the incomplete actions of a nonhuman agent by inferring its goals (S.C. Johnson et al., 2001). From infancy, we are, then, excellent ‘‘agency detectors’’ (Barrett, 2000; Guthrie, 2002).

But research explicitly focused on children’s understanding of God has also found that by 5 years of age, children can make quite sophisticated predictions as to how a more widely recognized non-natural agent’s mental states are distinguished from those of earthlier individuals. Nevertheless, the results revealed correlations between children’s teleological ideas about nature and their endorsements of intentional design. Furthermore, no artificialism was found: Children identified people as the designing agents of artifacts (control items), distinguishing God as the designing agent of nature (Kelemen & DiYanni, in press).

A review of recent cognitive developmental research reveals that by around 5 years of age, children understand natural objects as not humanly caused, can reason about non-natural agents’ mental states, and demonstrate the capacity to view objects in terms of design.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x

Children's attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence
"young children do not reason about God's beliefs in human terms." Children seem innately able to think about God in ways that are different from how they think about other people.
Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and God: cross-cultural evidence - ScienceDirect

Religion is natural.
The notion of studying religious belief in babies might seem strange, but there is some recent work along these lines, such as Kuhlmeier, Bloom and Wynn (2004) on dualist thought and Newman, Keil, Kuhlmeier and Wynn (under review) on intuitions about design and agency. A different alternative rejects the notion that religion is an evolutionary accident – a by-product of cognitive systems that evolved for other purposes.
Religion is natural. - PubMed - NCBI

The study below offers support that children may be cognitively prepared to understand gods and humans differently and can have concepts of God from an early development independent from concepts of humans. This also supports the idea that children’s attributions are not the human made ones that are associated with evolution, culture or societal influences.

Do you see what I see? Young children's assumptions about God's perceptual abilities.
“studies suggest that children can represent certain aspects of God’s characteristics, like immortality, creative power, and omniscience quite easily and quite differently from their human representations.”

Results revealed that preschoolers distinguished God and the special animals as having greater perceptual access than humans and normal animals, who were predicted to have limited perceptual access. These results offer further support for the theory that in developing a concept of God, even young children differentiate God from humans and resist incorporating certain aspects of the human concept into their concept of God.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-13540-002

 

[stevevw]

Because putting numbers to such things feels like achieving something, and maybe it helps focus the mind. The same happens with the Drake equation, with equal justification.

Then why do they say things like this
The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
It seems they are saying that the experiments are correct and valid science.

 

[pitabread]

Then why do they say things like this
The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
It seems they are saying that the experiments are correct and valid science.

Who says that?

 

[stevevw]

And what if they do? That doesn't tell us anything about the probability thereof.

If the values have to stay what they are otherwise they will not produce the right conditions isn't that telling us the odds. Its like saying a persons cholesterol must remain 5 and if it changes it will cause a heart attack. There would be little room to change things.

Probably to show what they show. I mean, it sounds like you're trying to read into these sorts of modeling or simulations beyond than what they show. Some times things mean what they mean at face value.

No I am just trying to work out why they would bother doing the experiments if they didn't mean anything. On the one hand they make claims that the findings are correct and valid but on the other they mean nothing.

 

[stevevw]

Who says that?

The author of the paper. he referenced a number of papers which he claimed verified
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
L. A. Barnes
There are a number of excellent reviews of the cosmological constant in the scientific literature (Weinberg 1989; Carroll 2001; Vilenkin 2003; Polchinski 2006, Durrer & Maartens 2007; Padmanabhan 2007; Bousso 2008). The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/AS/pdf/AS12015

 

[Speedwell]

The author of the paper. he referenced a number of papers which he claimed verified
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
L. A. Barnes
There are a number of excellent reviews of the cosmological constant in the scientific literature (Weinberg 1989; Carroll 2001; Vilenkin 2003; Polchinski 2006, Durrer & Maartens 2007; Padmanabhan 2007; Bousso 2008). The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/AS/pdf/AS12015

"We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life."

But in the end, they don't come up with a probability calculation of their own.

 

[stevevw]

That post was written in such a way as to show skepticism that it could be done, but an open mind to the possibility, however small. I've heard a lot of descriptions of "creative agents," but not all of them. I've yet to hear one that is cogent.

It should also not be construed as support for your idea that

I understand that and it is good to have an open mind to the possibility. It is not a case of hearing one that is cogent. It is being open to the idea that is important. If a person is closed to the idea then they wont even see it if it did happen and would thus regard any evidence as unfounded and relate it to something else.

In fact, it is a testament of my opinion of the opposite.

And indeed, all attempts to do so that I have heard are, as VirOptimus has said, akin to magic. My post was similar to his post, without the definitive tone.

You have misunderstood my statement. It is more or less exactly the same statement that you made. I have not said that a creative agent has been verified. All I have tried to put forward is that a creative agent is a reasonable hypothesis to have. A hypothesis is a proposed idea to account for observations. It is yet to be verified and therefore needs investigation and research. This is reasonable as to exclude this would then be saying we definitely know that this cannot be the case which is unreasonable.

 

[stevevw]

"We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life."

But in the end, they don't come up with a probability calculation of their own.

Then what do they mean by "Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been". Isn't that talking about the possible variations and therefor indicates the probabilities. And why say we conclude that the universe is fine tuned for life. This is a paper that has done research and they have made a claim based on that research. For example they say after the section I quoted

The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously. Super-symmetry won’t help. The problem cannot be defined away. The most plausible small-vacuum-selecting mechanisms don’t work in a universe that contains matter. Particle physics is blind to the absolute value of the vacuum energy.

The point is this: however, many ways there are of producing a life permitting universe, there are vastly many more ways of making a life-prohibiting one.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

Then the author gives a specific example of tests done and quotes the % of change that would cause no life.

We need to ask how the properties of the resonance level, and thus stellar nucleosynthesis, change as we alter the fundamental constants. Oberhummer, Csoto & Schlattl (2000a)25 have performed such calculations, combining the predictions of a microscopic 12-body, three-alpha cluster model of 12C (as alluded to by Weinberg) with a stellar nucleosynthesis code. They conclude that: Even with a change of 0.4% in the strength of [nucleon-nucleon] force, carbon-based life appears to be impossible, since all the stars then would produce either almost solely carbon or oxygen but could not produce both elements.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The paper is a critique of Victor Stengers paper who claimed there was not fine tuning. So the authors are showing there is fine tuning. In making their case they have to provide scientific support (which they do) otherwise they have not made a case.

 

[Speedwell]

You have misunderstood my statement. It is more or less exactly the same statement that you made. I have not said that a creative agent has been verified. All I have tried to put forward is that a creative agent is a reasonable hypothesis to have. A hypothesis is a proposed idea to account for observations. It is yet to be verified and therefore needs investigation and research. This is reasonable as to exclude this would then be saying we definitely know that this cannot be the case which is unreasonable.

The existence of a creative agent is an unfalsifiable proposition consistent with all scientific hypotheses. What you appear to want to do is to make the existence of a creative agent in to a falsifiable hypothesis. I have never come across anyone trying to do that who didn't have a particular "creative agent" in mind, and a political agenda to go with it. Maybe your the first, but I doubt it.

 

[Speedwell]

Then what do they mean by "Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been". Isn't that talking about the possible variations and therefor indicates the probabilities. And why say we conclude that the universe is fine tuned for life. This is a paper that has done research and they have made a claim based on that research. The paper is a critique of Victor Stengers paper who claimed there was not fine tuning. So the authors are showing there is fine tuning. In making their case they have to provide scientific support (which they do) otherwise they have not made a case.

Where's the number? Probability is a number, a ratio of two numbers which can be calculated. You claimed there was such a number. I don't see it.

 

[stevevw]

The existence of a creative agent is an unfalsifiable proposition consistent with all scientific hypotheses. What you appear to want to do is to make the existence of a creative agent in to a falsifiable hypothesis. I have never come across anyone trying to do that who didn't have a particular "creative agent" in mind, and a political agenda to go with it. Maybe your the first, but I doubt it.

I am not really fussed about proving a creative agent as I know this would be impossible and my faith does not depend on this. I am more concerned about the issue that a creative agent is rejected out of hand in the first place just because it is associated with religion and is tarred with creationism.

IMO because we are at a point in understanding reality that is requiring ideas that are hard to directly verify scientifically most ideas are outside verification. Science is converging with philosophy and the thinking is going that way so a creative agent idea is not to far fetched as one of the possible options to consider. But to reject it out of hand is unfair.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not really fussed about proving a creative agent as I know this would be impossible and my faith does not depend on this. I am more concerned about the issue that a creative agent is rejected out of hand in the first place just because it is associated with religion and is tarred with creationism.

Straw man. The only 'creative agent' being rejected has already been tarred with the brush of creationism. The number of scientists who remain quite comfortable with their faith in God is evidence of it.

IMO because we are at a point in understanding reality that is requiring ideas that are hard to directly verify scientifically most ideas are outside verification. Science is converging with philosophy and the thinking is going that way so a creative agent idea is not to far fetched as one of the possible options to consider. But to reject it out of hand is unfair.

Unfair to creationists, poor things.

 

[46AND2]

You have misunderstood my statement. It is more or less exactly the same statement that you made. I have not said that a creative agent has been verified. All I have tried to put forward is that a creative agent is a reasonable hypothesis to have.

No, you have misunderstood mine. If the best one can come up with to explain an observation (fine-tuning) is no better an explanation than magic, then the hypothesis is not reasonable.

 

[46AND2]

I am not really fussed about proving a creative agent as I know this would be impossible and my faith does not depend on this. I am more concerned about the issue that a creative agent is rejected out of hand in the first place just because it is associated with religion and is tarred with creationism.

If you know that it is an unfalsifiable proposition, this automatically disqualifies it from being a reasonable hypothesis, and SHOULD be rejected out of hand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why would Barrett quote
“all this evidence supports that children are born believers”.

I don't recognise that quote - it's not in the Telegraph newspaper clipping you linked. Perhaps you could give me the relevant link.

The evidence shows that the attributions children make are different from human made attributions like those mentioned by evolution or from cultural or societal influences.
The children’s attributions are a unique way of thinking that is unlike how humans think when attributing divine concepts to the material world.

This is very confused - children are humans too, so their attributions are human attributions. However, they are predisposed to attribute hidden agency which is a pre-rational trait, an innate survival heuristic. So it is not like the generally more rational thought of mature adults.

When the paper mentions that infants make imaginative friends and unseen heroes this is just the way infants under 5 articulate things.

No, they really do have imaginary friends and heroes.

... <more of what we've already seen> ...

You just posted a whole bunch of stuff that simply confirms the thesis that an innate predisposition to attribute teleological agency develops into more sophisticated concepts, from potentially unlimited agency by around a year, to more explicit ideas of the divine by four and above.

It's worth repeating that these concepts develop through early childhood in a cultural context, and that different cultures have beliefs in many different types of non-human agency, not all of which are divine or God-like. In some cultures, they don't develop any such beliefs. This suggests that cultural priming determines the kind of hidden agency beliefs that result.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why do they say things like this
The calculations are known to be correct in other contexts and so are taken very seriously.
It seems they are saying that the experiments are correct and valid science.

Without any context for that quote, it's not possible to comment.

Who said it? what calculations? what other contexts? taken seriously regarding what?

What experiments? what do you mean by a 'correct experiment'?