A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

Start with Aristotle and his four kinds of causality.

Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas which I also like:

"Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes."

The mechanism of evolution is a contingent cause.

Very interesting, thanks I will check it out.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All the author has done was devise a detailed mathematical theory of what specified complexity is, what it does and how it can be used to rule out proposed explanations. It is more like a formula that allows others to come up with models they can to use in their own work to measure specified complexity.

For somebody who doesn't understand the language used you seem to be remarkably sure of what it does and does not say. I will say this one last time - he has come up with a method to post hoc assert the improbability of a given evolutionary event.

 

[Kylie]

Yes but sometimes even non-beneficial mutations end up spreading in a population as well because selection cannot see them to weed them out. Because mutations are random they can undermine the evolution of complex organisms especially for smaller populations like erythrocytes and especially when the level of complexity increases. So increases in complexity are more likely to stem from non-adaptive sources IE

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the non-adaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.
What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

As Lynch states in his paper why have single celled organisms succeeded so well when compared to multi-celled complex life. It is because adaptive evolution introduces mutations that undermine the delicate and complex genomic structures in complex organisms. Despite natural selection attempting to weed out the mutational effects that cause dysfunction the process of random mutations causes genomes to be undermined by the fact that these fine tuned structures need to be upheld and any change needs to be the right kind to maintain this.
Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

So if a variation creates a trait that makes it more likely the individuals with this trait will die before they are able to reproduce and pass it on, why do you think it is going to be MORE likely to be passed on?

I wasn't making a claim about it being verified just agreeing with you that the current theory as used by supports of theistic evolution can be used as a way of how God allowed life to survive on earth.

So what? We can't say that something is plausible simply because it is unfalsifiable. Indeed, if something is unfalsifiable, we should regard it with suspicion!

Not really, ID is a science so it is not going to support a process that can create life in one step. That is more associated with creationism. It is only concerned with signs of design in life and supporting this scientifically.

No, ID is not a science. It makes no predictions, it has no explanatory power.

Directly no but indirectly we can find some support. That is why people look at the fine tuning argument. ID is really based on the same idea that life is fine tuned to survive so there may be evidence of this. It may not verify a God but it can support some sort of agency. Some scientists in finding it hard to support how life began on earth claimed that an intelligent alien race seeded earth with life. Though this is not about evolution the same sort of logic can be used.

Except the fine tuning argument is bunk. Life adapted to suit the conditions that were already here. The conditions were not set to suit the life that would later arise.

You keep making this basic mistake, even after you have been corrected. How do you expect me to take your arguments seriously when you ignore what I've told you?

That depends on how you see the evidence. Take the fine tuning argument. Many people use this as a sign of intelligent agency setting the parameters for intelligent life to exist on earth. ID is based on a similar logic. How can the living cell be so fine tuned to build proteins for life. There are only a set amount of protein that require highly complex info in an information pot of unlimited possibilities. How did this happen. Some of the papers showing how rare functional proteins are can help build a case for there being very specific structures and info required for the living cell that points to intelligence.

You seem to insist on an argument that has been disproven.

No the fine tuning arguments show how each of 30 physical parameters need to be finely tuned to allow life. This can be measured and we can see that any slight variation may produce a universe that does not produce intelligent life. The puddle example does not give any explanation of how the particular jagged edges are the way they are. Applied to the fine tuning argument it would assume that the 30 parameters for life happen to be just right because we have intelligent life. It does not make an argument. You need to tell us why the hole which equates to the 30 physical parameters for producing life was that shape as opposed to billions of other possible shapes.

Can you show me that this universe is the only one there is? It is possible that there are countless universes, and if each is slightly different, then there will be universes with all kinds of laws. Is it a surprise to you that we find ourselves in a universe where the laws allow Humans to develop? Perhaps you wonder why we aren't in a universe where Humans can't develop?

The mistake with your idea is that you are assuming there is only one hole with a certain jagged shape (set of parameters). The fine tuning argument has 30 parameters and each is set at a specific condition in a sliding scale that could have been set at any setting in the billions and billions maybe unlimited. So your hole only deals with one set of parameters. So for the puddle example to work the specific jagged shape of that hole would have to be set as opposed to other shaped holes and only that hole could be fill with water despite there being many other holes around it. Otherwise you assuming things and are begging the question in that life came about because all the physical parameters were right and all the parameters were right because life came about. The water fits the puddle because the puddle fits the water.

The mistake you are making is assuming that there is only one universe. Like I said before, what if there are countless universe, each with different laws?

Your argument seems to be nothing more than the claim that the shape of the puddle was set before the hole formed, and since a hole forming to perfectly fit the pre-determined puddle shape is extremely unlikely, the hole must have been intelligently designed. You know that's not how puddles work. There's no point continuing to talk to you if you can't understand this amazingly simple point.

 

[stevevw]

So if a variation creates a trait that makes it more likely the individuals with this trait will die before they are able to reproduce and pass it on, why do you think it is going to be MORE likely to be passed on?

The mutation is usually very slight so it won't cause a creature to die but it can still be passed on. Just like we carry many slightly deleterious mutations. But I think what Lynch is saying that for complex creatures natural selection acting on random mutations is not what evolved the complex networks in genomes and that it is when the power of natural is reduced that complexity can evolve.
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

No, ID is not a science. It makes no predictions, it has no explanatory power.

According to ID it does make prediction which can be tested. here are some
Predictions in Biology

• ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
• ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
• ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
• ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
• ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macro-molecular systems and organelles.
• ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
• ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
• ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
• ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
• ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

Except the fine tuning argument is bunk. Life adapted to suit the conditions that were already here. The conditions were not set to suit the life that would later arise.

But those conditions that were already there for life had to be just right. After the big bang any number of conditions could have resulted. If they did not end up just right we would not have had any life. You are assuming that the conditions for life were the only conditions we could have ended up with. For example take just one of the constants such as the Ratio of Electrons to Protons which is 1 part in 10 to the 37th. The odds for this ratio to happen and not be any less or more is covered by the following example

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115).

These are some of the other constants involved. The Cosmological constant at 1 part in 10^120 is particularly amazing.

In the Big Bang theory there needs to be just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe. But research showed there wasn't enough matter to show a flat universe. A cosmological constant increases the energy density to make up for the missing matter but would need to be very fine tuned. Recent research has show that the energy density matches exactly what would be needed for a flat universe which is One part in 10 to the 120th. That is a 1 followed by 120 zero's. 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00. If any different the universe as we know it would not exist.

There are 30 odd constants that could have ended up with any ratio but they happen to be just right for intelligent life on earth. If they were slightly different then all sorts of consequences will happen like with the gravitational force constant which is 1 part in 10^34. If it was slightly larger by the smallest of margins the stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life to begin. If slightly smaller stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion and the chemicals for life would not come about.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

You keep making this basic mistake, even after you have been corrected. How do you expect me to take your arguments seriously when you ignore what I've told you?

I don't understand what you mean. If you are talking about the fine tuning argument this is supported by many mainstream scientists. Even Stephen Hawkins stated
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

You seem to insist on an argument that has been disproven.

I don't think it has been proven or disproven at this stage. But many scientists who are not religious seem to acknowledge the difficultly of accounting for how these many physical constants are so right to allow intelligent life.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect 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."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Leonard Susskind (professor of theoretical physics) “can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly well-designed for our own existence? ….. to make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is almost certainly no accident.”
Martin Rees (cosmologist and astrophysicist)
“If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it …The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.”

The mistake you are making is assuming that there is only one universe. Like I said before, what if there are countless universe, each with different laws?

Yes this is one way some scientists have overcome the fine tuning argument. If there are many other universes then our one is not so special that it allowed life. But some say verifying a multiverse is impossible.

Your argument seems to be nothing more than the claim that the shape of the puddle was set before the hole formed, and since a hole forming to perfectly fit the pre-determined puddle shape is extremely unlikely, the hole must have been intelligently designed. You know that's not how puddles work. There's no point continuing to talk to you if you can't understand this amazingly simple point.

The puddle example has long been disputed and shown to be a wriong analogy when it comes to the fine tuning argument.
Mistaken Objections that Seek to Trivialize Fine-Tuning
The point is if you offer the multiverse where there are other universes with different physical laws that counter our fine tuned universe then you are acknowledging that the puddle example does not work. You are recognizing that our universe has the specific physical conditions to allow life but you have overcome this by saying there are many other universes with varying physical laws that will diminish our special universe. That means if there is no multiverse then our universe is fine tuned for life.

The puddle example is different to this as you are saying that there are no specific conditions in our universe that allow life in the first place. It just happened because it happened therefore no need for an equivalent to a multiverse puddle.

 

[Speedwell]

The mutation is usually very slight so it won't cause a creature to die but it can still be passed on. Just like we carry many slightly deleterious mutations. But I think what Lynch is saying that for complex creatures natural selection acting on random mutations is not what evolved the complex networks in genomes and that it is when the power of natural is reduced that complexity can evolve.
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

According to ID it does make prediction which can be tested. here are some
Predictions in Biology

• ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
• ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
• ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
• ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
• ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macro-molecular systems and organelles.
• ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
• ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
• ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
• ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
• ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

But those conditions that were already there for life had to be just right. After the big bang any number of conditions could have resulted. If they did not end up just right we would not have had any life. You are assuming that the conditions for life were the only conditions we could have ended up with. For example take just one of the constants such as the Ratio of Electrons to Protons which is 1 part in 10 to the 37th. The odds for this ratio to happen and not be any less or more is covered by the following example

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115).

These are some of the other constants involved. The Cosmological constant at 1 part in 10^120 is particularly amazing.

In the Big Bang theory there needs to be just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe. But research showed there wasn't enough matter to show a flat universe. A cosmological constant increases the energy density to make up for the missing matter but would need to be very fine tuned. Recent research has show that the energy density matches exactly what would be needed for a flat universe which is One part in 10 to the 120th. That is a 1 followed by 120 zero's. 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00. If any different the universe as we know it would not exist.

There are 30 odd constants that could have ended up with any ratio but they happen to be just right for intelligent life on earth. If they were slightly different then all sorts of consequences will happen like with the gravitational force constant which is 1 part in 10^34. If it was slightly larger by the smallest of margins the stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life to begin. If slightly smaller stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion and the chemicals for life would not come about.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

I don't understand what you mean. If you are talking about the fine tuning argument this is supported by many mainstream scientists. Even Stephen Hawkins stated
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

I don't think it has been proven or disproven at this stage. But many scientists who are not religious seem to acknowledge the difficultly of accounting for how these many physical constants are so right to allow intelligent life.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect 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."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Leonard Susskind (professor of theoretical physics) “can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly well-designed for our own existence? ….. to make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is almost certainly no accident.”
Martin Rees (cosmologist and astrophysicist)
“If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it …The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.”

Yes this is one way some scientists have overcome the fine tuning argument. If there are many other universes then our one is not so special that it allowed life. But some say verifying a multiverse is impossible.

The puddle example has long been disputed and shown to be a wriong analogy when it comes to the fine tuning argument.
Mistaken Objections that Seek to Trivialize Fine-Tuning
The point is if you offer the multiverse where there are other universes with different physical laws that counter our fine tuned universe then you are acknowledging that the puddle example does not work. You are recognizing that our universe has the specific physical conditions to allow life but you have overcome this by saying there are many other universes with varying physical laws that will diminish our special universe. The puddle example is different to this as you are saying that there are no specific conditions in our universe that allow life. It just happened because it happened therefore no need for an equivalent to a multiverse puddle.

Well, whatever. I'm just glad I am not living in a universe where life is impossible.

 

[stevevw]

Well, whatever. I'm just glad I am not living in a universe where life is impossible.

According to the multiverse theory there could be another universe where there is another you and me with slightly different conditions living slightly different lives.

 

[pitabread]

indeed, because you are talking about a single event. but if you will continue eventually you will find out that the average will be indeed 1/6. so we are talking about the average.

In this case what you are talking about is a probability distribution. (Personally, I'd caution at using strict averages since they can be highly misleading due to outliers).

That's still not the same thing as a strict number of mutations, which is what you are implying every time you say "number of mutations".

any protein/biological system has a minimal limit. we cant just start from nothing. so a minimal globin for instance will need a minimal set of amino acids. a minimal binding site need a minimal set of amino acids and so on. usually a big part of the protein is needed for its minimal function.

Okay. That's a different discussion than the ratio of functional sequences to non-functional sequences.

actually i dont think that there is enough time for bacteria evolution either. but not for free i was talking about animals. lets find out first if we had enough time for animal evolution and maybe we will discuss about bacteria evolution too.

What's the difference? Life all uses the same basic DNA code and in a discussion of functional versus non-functional proteins, the type of organism involved seems irrelevant.

 

[pitabread]

So why cannot the same pattern recognition be used for life.

It's not just pattern recognition. It's pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge of how a thing is created.

Just to put this in context, right now it is highly challenging to identify GM organisms without pre-existing knowledge of the genetic sequences in question. Ask yourself this: if we have trouble coming up with ways to identify organisms that we *know* have been modified by humans, then how can we identify organisms that may have been created or modified by completely unknown means?

The answer is: we can't.

Why cannot the science of cause and effect be used.

I don't know what the "science of cause and effect" is supposed to mean.

Why do scientists talk about the large odds against a living cell being produced and why do they talk about the fine tuning for intelligent life. All these are based on the same probability determination we use for other events. For example with the living cell it is not just about showing that the odds of the mechanisms used in evolution are unlikely to produce such things but also that the processes that are involved look and act like the type of mechanisms we regard as intelligently designed ie machines and language sequences that require a high level of specificity, organisation and functionality.

You're going to have to provide some context for these claims.

In general, I find that the only time people talk about fine tuning or the incredibly probabilities of life is usually when they are trying to make an argument for design. And such arguments always end up with the same inherent flaws.

 

[stevevw]

It's not just pattern recognition. It's pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge of how a thing is created.

Just to put this in context, right now it is highly challenging to identify GM organisms without pre-existing knowledge of the genetic sequences in question. Ask yourself this: if we have trouble coming up with ways to identify organisms that we *know* have been modified by humans, then how can we identify organisms that may have been created or modified by completely unknown means?

The answer is: we can't.

Yet scientists claim that they can tell how life has increased in complexity from the first simple organism.

I don't know what the "science of cause and effect" is supposed to mean.

Cause and effect relationships is based on causality and if the results of an experiment are caused by the manipulation of what is being tested or studied or it stems from some other factor/s.
Cause and effect
Cause and Effect - SAGE Research Methods

You're going to have to provide some context for these claims.

The Odds of a Cell Forming Randomly by Chance Alone

In general, I find that the only time people talk about fine tuning or the incredibly probabilities of life is usually when they are trying to make an argument for design. And such arguments always end up with the same inherent flaws.

As I quoted in post #184 above that even non religious scientists like Hawkins, Hoyle, Davies and Suskind mention the difficulties of addressing what the fine tuning of the physical parameters for our universe in allowing intelligent life.

 

[Kylie]

The mutation is usually very slight so it won't cause a creature to die but it can still be passed on. Just like we carry many slightly deleterious mutations.

It doesn't need to outright cause death. All it needs to do is render a reproductive disadvantage and it will still have that effect. If the average number of offspring is 2, but variation A leads to an average number of 3 and variation B leads to an average number of 1, then Variation A will spread and Variation B will die out.

But I think what Lynch is saying that for complex creatures natural selection acting on random mutations is not what evolved the complex networks in genomes and that it is when the power of natural is reduced that complexity can evolve.
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

Evolution doesn't necessarily mean increased complexity. It just means adapting to survive in whatever conditions are present.

According to ID it does make prediction which can be tested. here are some
Predictions in Biology

• ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
• ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
• ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
• ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
• ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macro-molecular systems and organelles.
• ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
• ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
• ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
• ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
• ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

And out of all of those, which can be explained ONLY by ID? The answer is that none of them are. Evolution can explain any of those.

But those conditions that were already there for life had to be just right. After the big bang any number of conditions could have resulted. If they did not end up just right we would not have had any life. You are assuming that the conditions for life were the only conditions we could have ended up with. For example take just one of the constants such as the Ratio of Electrons to Protons which is 1 part in 10 to the 37th. The odds for this ratio to happen and not be any less or more is covered by the following example

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115).

These are some of the other constants involved. The Cosmological constant at 1 part in 10^120 is particularly amazing.

In the Big Bang theory there needs to be just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe. But research showed there wasn't enough matter to show a flat universe. A cosmological constant increases the energy density to make up for the missing matter but would need to be very fine tuned. Recent research has show that the energy density matches exactly what would be needed for a flat universe which is One part in 10 to the 120th. That is a 1 followed by 120 zero's. 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00. If any different the universe as we know it would not exist.

There are 30 odd constants that could have ended up with any ratio but they happen to be just right for intelligent life on earth. If they were slightly different then all sorts of consequences will happen like with the gravitational force constant which is 1 part in 10^34. If it was slightly larger by the smallest of margins the stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life to begin. If slightly smaller stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion and the chemicals for life would not come about.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

So? If there are multiple universe, it could be that every single possible universe exists, and we are here and not in one of the others because this is the only one that happened to have the right conditions.

That doesn't mean that some agency intended for us. I mean, if there is a lottery that has a trillion trillion possible results, but you've bought tickets with every single possible number, it's guaranteed that you're going to win. Doesn't mean that something out there wanted you to win.

I don't understand what you mean. If you are talking about the fine tuning argument this is supported by many mainstream scientists. Even Stephen Hawkins stated
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

There's a mighty big difference between "seem" and "is."

I don't think it has been proven or disproven at this stage. But many scientists who are not religious seem to acknowledge the difficultly of accounting for how these many physical constants are so right to allow intelligent life.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect 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."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Leonard Susskind (professor of theoretical physics) “can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly well-designed for our own existence? ….. to make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is almost certainly no accident.”
Martin Rees (cosmologist and astrophysicist)
“If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it …The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.”

And if the multiverse idea is correct, then all this is neatly explained, isn't it?

Yes this is one way some scientists have overcome the fine tuning argument. If there are many other universes then our one is not so special that it allowed life. But some say verifying a multiverse is impossible.

And why does this bother you? If you're going to say we should consider something unless it can be verified, then why do you not apply it to ID?

The puddle example has long been disputed and shown to be a wriong analogy when it comes to the fine tuning argument.
Mistaken Objections that Seek to Trivialize Fine-Tuning

They all seem to be flawed.

The first point is assuming the end result of life as we know it, when it could be life of a completely different kind. It also ignores the multiverse idea.

The second point only deals with repeated events - and it would be valid if random universes were formed which each have the exact conditions needed to support life as we know it. But that does not apply to reality.

The third point assumes that a puddle can only exist in one shape and it just happened to be lucky enough to find a hole that matches. But like the first point, it ignores the idea that there is more than one way life could have turned out, and which kind of life depends on the conditions that it has to deal with.

The fourth point ignores the fact that if every single possible universe exists, then a universe where we exist MUST be among them. It's like the lottery example I used earlier - if you buy every single ticket, you're guaranteed to have the winner, even if most of them are losers.

The fifth point ignores the fact that, continuing their dice analogy, that & is still a possible outcome and we shouldn't assume that just because we rolled a 7 the very first time that some intelligence wanted the first result to be a 7.

The point is if you offer the multiverse where there are other universes with different physical laws that counter our fine tuned universe then you are acknowledging that the puddle example does not work. You are recognizing that our universe has the specific physical conditions to allow life but you have overcome this by saying there are many other universes with varying physical laws that will diminish our special universe. That means if there is no multiverse then our universe is fine tuned for life.

I think you misunderstand, since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the puddle's shape is fixed and unalterable, and it had to find just the right shape hole for it.

But if we want to use it as an analogy for a multiverse theory, then every single possible hole must exist, and there is guaranteed to be a hole the right shape as the puddle. And if we try to put puddles of that shape into all the holes, then we'll find that the only holes that end up with puddles are the ones with the right shape, and those will be the only puddles who think that they were meant to be there. And yet there is still nothing that meant for them to be there, it's just that they couldn't find themselves in any other hole because the puddles that were placed in other holes are dead already.

The puddle example is different to this as you are saying that there are no specific conditions in our universe that allow life in the first place. It just happened because it happened therefore no need for an equivalent to a multiverse puddle.

No, I agree that life as we know it requires that the universe have the conditions that this universe does. I'm just saying that if every possible universe exists, then a universe with our conditions is certain, and that happens to be the universe we find ourselves in because we couldn't possibly find ourselves in a universe with different conditions.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution doesn't necessarily mean increased complexity. It just means adapting to survive in whatever conditions are present.

It is not just about survival. As far as I understand the papers are talking the increase in complexity from single celled life. Natural selection is played a minor role and the increase in complexity is the result of other non-adaptive mechanisms as the process of natural selection and random mutations undermine the building of complex networks. All creatures are built from similar genes and further variation and complexity may come from pre-existing genetic info.

And out of all of those, which can be explained ONLY by ID? The answer is that none of them are. Evolution can explain any of those.

Actually I have read about evolution in the recent past making claims of how simple life was and that it was no great feat to evolve life. How Neanderthals were dumb simple brutes. How there was a lot of junk DNA and how the ENCORE study reveal more function in DNA than they thought. ID had predicted this for a long time.

The non-adequacy of the DNA centric view of life mentioned in point 3 is associated with the mechanisms that are mentioned in the EES papers posted earlier when they say that Darwinian evolution is gene centric and only promotes adaptations through natural selection acting on random mutations. IE
new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

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

ID has been saying things along these lines for some time. That there are other mechanisms that are built in that can cause change and allow living things to have variation besides adaptive evolution. But the Standard theory either denies or minimizes this by explaining this in adaptive terms. The evidence is now becoming stronger for what the EES is saying.

Evolution theory still makes out that all the convergence evolution we see is the result of adaptive evolution where similar features seen in different creatures just happens to be extraordinary coincidence. Whereas ID is saying that this is not all about convergent evolution which is in line with how processes like developmental bias works in producing similar features in different creatures through development. Evolutionary theory has always rejected the claims and research from ID showing that functional protein folds are very rare compared to the possible large amount of non-functional space. They have also rejected the claim by ID about the multiple coordinated non-adaptive mutations needed to build proteins which there is now evidence for.

Evolution would not have predicted any fine tuning in DNA as this would be acknowledging design and as mentioned evolution rejects or at least minimizes the last prediction that living things have built in systems/mechanism which I have been mentioning that allow living things to change other than adaptive evolution. As with the example of the EES mechanisms. Evolution may try to explain these things but it does not mean they are correct. Evidence is coming out in support of some of the above ID predictions.

 

[stevevw]

So? If there are multiple universe, it could be that every single possible universe exists, and we are here and not in one of the others because this is the only one that happened to have the right conditions.

That doesn't mean that some agency intended for us. I mean, if there is a lottery that has a trillion trillion possible results, but you've bought tickets with every single possible number, it's guaranteed that you're going to win. Doesn't mean that something out there wanted you to win.

The problem is in presenting a multiverse to counter the fine tuning you must propose something that is impossible to verify directly. Most atheists would say that this is no evidence just like we cannot verify God directly.

And if the multiverse idea is correct, then all this is neatly explained, isn't it?

The multiverse can never be directly verified.

And why does this bother you? If you're going to say we should consider something unless it can be verified, then why do you not apply it to ID?

ID does try to verify things as mentioned above. But ID is more verifiable that a multiverse as what is proposed by ID is testable within our reality whereas a multiverse has other dimensions we can never visit directly.

They all seem to be flawed.
The first point is assuming the end result of life as we know it, when it could be life of a completely different kind. It also ignores the multiverse idea.
The second point only deals with repeated events - and it would be valid if random universes were formed which each have the exact conditions needed to support life as we know it. But that does not apply to reality.

The third point assumes that a puddle can only exist in one shape and it just happened to be lucky enough to find a hole that matches. But like the first point, it ignores the idea that there is more than one way life could have turned out, and which kind of life depends on the conditions that it has to deal with.

Are you applying the multiverse idea to the puddle example when you say that there could be more than one life produced. Or are you saying that those other life forms could be in our universe.

The fourth point ignores the fact that if every single possible universe exists, then a universe where we exist MUST be among them. It's like the lottery example I used earlier - if you buy every single ticket, you're guaranteed to have the winner, even if most of them are losers. The fifth point ignores the fact that, continuing their dice analogy, that & is still a possible outcome and we shouldn't assume that just because we rolled a 7 the very first time that some intelligence wanted the first result to be a 7.

The lottery idea does not work because we are not just talking about 1 number but a combination of numbers that is so great that the odds are impossible to win. Even if the lottery was help in every other universe because each universe will be facing the same impossible odds. But now we are getting into some unreal territory. If a supporter of design was proposing that they would be shot down.

I think you misunderstand, since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the puddle's shape is fixed and unalterable, and it had to find just the right shape hole for it.

But if we want to use it as an analogy for a multiverse theory, then every single possible hole must exist, and there is guaranteed to be a hole the right shape as the puddle. And if we try to put puddles of that shape into all the holes, then we'll find that the only holes that end up with puddles are the ones with the right shape, and those will be the only puddles who think that they were meant to be there. And yet there is still nothing that meant for them to be there, it's just that they couldn't find themselves in any other hole because the puddles that were placed in other holes are dead already.

No I understand the puddle example the puddle in that there is not fixed shapes to puddles and holes and that to the puddle it could think it just happened to be in the right hole. But that is not what the fine-tuning argument is about, so it is a bad analogy if there is only one puddle or universe. That is like saying we just happened to wake up with the right physical conditions for intelligent life in our universe because we are here. But that does not explain anything about how the right physical parameters got there instead on billions of other possible parameters.

And as mentioned when using a multiverse or (puddle multiverse) to counter the fine-tuning argument then you are actually acknowledging the fine-tuning argument because you have to introduce many other puddles or universes with varying conditions and shapes to make our fine tune one just one of many and not so special. So the puddle example using one puddle does not work because rather then the water being able to mold to any hole it had to mold to a particular hole and it would have to explain how that particular hole got there to allow that rather than billions of other hole options.

No, I agree that life as we know it requires that the universe have the conditions that this universe does. I'm just saying that if every possible universe exists, then a universe with our conditions is certain, and that happens to be the universe we find ourselves in because we couldn't possibly find ourselves in a universe with different conditions.

OK I see. Yes, that would be correct if there was a multiverse then we would just happen to be in the right universe. But also, a multiverse allows for many possibilities so there may be other you and me with slightly different experiences because the conditions were slightly different thinking the same thing and so on.

 

[Speedwell]

Very interesting, thanks I will check it out.

The point is, that Christian theology does not require ID, which makes me wonder why you are so keen on it.

 

[stevevw]

The point is, that Christian theology does not require ID, which makes me wonder why you are so keen on it.

I just think it makes sense that a creator God would have signs of his creation. After-all the bible tells us this is the case.

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Psalm 19: 1 and 2.

Hebrews 3:4, ESV: "(For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)"

When we see Gods creation we intuitively know that there is agency behind it. Not just intelligence but might, wisdom, power, and love. Though some believe God created supernaturally it makes sense that God used mechanisms that allow life to adapt to planet earth. These should be mechanisms that life was installed with. I don't think God would take a gamble on leaving life to evolve through a blind and random process that would not guarantee what we see today. As supporters of the standard theory often state if evolution re-ran there is no guarantee the same outcomes would happen. There had to be some fine tuning from the beginning to ensure we ended up with a universe that produced the earth and the type of life we have that can recognize God as the Creator and have relationship with Him.

 

[VirOptimus]

I just think it makes sense that a creator God would have signs of his creation. After-all the bible tells us this is the case.

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Psalm 19: 1 and 2.

Hebrews 3:4, ESV: "(For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)"

When we see Gods creation we intuitively know that there is agency behind it. Not just intelligence but might, wisdom, power, and love. Though some believe God created supernaturally it makes sense that God used mechanisms that allow life to adapt to planet earth. These should be mechanisms that life was installed with. I don't think God would take a gamble on leaving life to evolve through a blind and random process that would not guarantee what we see today. As supporters of the standard theory often state if evolution re-ran there is no guarantee the same outcomes would happen. There had to be some fine tuning from the beginning to ensure we ended up with a universe that produced the earth and the type of life we have that can recognize God as the Creator and have relationship with Him.

The above us just religion and arguments from incredulity.

There is no data or credible research suggesting agency in the ToE or indeed in any science.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[pitabread]

Yet scientists claim that they can tell how life has increased in complexity from the first simple organism.

Okay. And?

Cause and effect relationships is based on causality and if the results of an experiment are caused by the manipulation of what is being tested or studied or it stems from some other factor/s.

Sure but what specifically does this have to do with ID?

The Odds of a Cell Forming Randomly by Chance Alone

As I said, this only tends to come up in the context of people trying to argue for ID. Not surprised to see a Meyer reference in the linked blog.

Besides which, nobody thinks that cell formed purely by random chance so calculating the odds of random formation of such is meaningless.

As I quoted in post #184 above that even non religious scientists like Hawkins, Hoyle, Davies and Suskind mention the difficulties of addressing what the fine tuning of the physical parameters for our universe in allowing intelligent life.

So? Just because a handful of scientists wax philosophic about the nature of our universe, it doesn't mean it's the result of deliberate design.

It certainly doesn't address the biggest problem with the 'fine tuning' argument in general: we have a sample size of 1. We don't have other universes to compare with; we only have our own reality.

On top of that, if the universe wasn't able to support life then we wouldn't be here in the first place to debate it.

 

[pitabread]

According to ID it does make prediction which can be tested. here are some
Predictions in Biology

• ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
• ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
• ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
• ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
• ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macro-molecular systems and organelles.
• ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
• ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
• ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
• ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
• ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

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.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think God would take a gamble on leaving life to evolve through a blind and random process that would not guarantee what we see today.

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

As supporters of the standard theory often state if evolution re-ran there is no guarantee the same outcomes would happen.

Correct. Why do you need the same outcomes to happen? Why do you want a guarantee?

There had to be some fine tuning from the beginning to ensure we ended up with a universe that produced the earth...

Evolution did not produce the Earth. The theory of evolution is a biological theory and has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth.

...and the type of life we have that can recognize God as the Creator and have relationship with Him.

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.

 

[Kylie]

It is not just about survival. As far as I understand the papers are talking the increase in complexity from single celled life. Natural selection is played a minor role and the increase in complexity is the result of other non-adaptive mechanisms as the process of natural selection and random mutations undermine the building of complex networks. All creatures are built from similar genes and further variation and complexity may come from pre-existing genetic info.

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

Actually I have read about evolution in the recent past making claims of how simple life was and that it was no great feat to evolve life. How Neanderthals were dumb simple brutes. How there was a lot of junk DNA and how the ENCORE study reveal more function in DNA than they thought. ID had predicted this for a long time.

The non-adequacy of the DNA centric view of life mentioned in point 3 is associated with the mechanisms that are mentioned in the EES papers posted earlier when they say that Darwinian evolution is gene centric and only promotes adaptations through natural selection acting on random mutations. IE
new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

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

ID has been saying things along these lines for some time. That there are other mechanisms that are built in that can cause change and allow living things to have variation besides adaptive evolution. But the Standard theory either denies or minimizes this by explaining this in adaptive terms. The evidence is now becoming stronger for what the EES is saying.

Evolution theory still makes out that all the convergence evolution we see is the result of adaptive evolution where similar features seen in different creatures just happens to be extraordinary coincidence. Whereas ID is saying that this is not all about convergent evolution which is in line with how processes like developmental bias works in producing similar features in different creatures through development. Evolutionary theory has always rejected the claims and research from ID showing that functional protein folds are very rare compared to the possible large amount of non-functional space. They have also rejected the claim by ID about the multiple coordinated non-adaptive mutations needed to build proteins which there is now evidence for.

Evolution would not have predicted any fine tuning in DNA as this would be acknowledging design and as mentioned evolution rejects or at least minimizes the last prediction that living things have built in systems/mechanism which I have been mentioning that allow living things to change other than adaptive evolution. As with the example of the EES mechanisms. Evolution may try to explain these things but it does not mean they are correct. Evidence is coming out in support of some of the above ID predictions.

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

 

[Kylie]

The problem is in presenting a multiverse to counter the fine tuning you must propose something that is impossible to verify directly. Most atheists would say that this is no evidence just like we cannot verify God directly.

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?

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?

The multiverse can never be directly verified.

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

ID does try to verify things as mentioned above. But ID is more verifiable that a multiverse as what is proposed by ID is testable within our reality whereas a multiverse has other dimensions we can never visit directly.

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

Are you applying the multiverse idea to the puddle example when you say that there could be more than one life produced. Or are you saying that those other life forms could be in our universe.

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, 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.

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.

The lottery idea does not work because we are not just talking about 1 number but a combination of numbers that is so great that the odds are impossible to win. Even if the lottery was help in every other universe because each universe will be facing the same impossible odds. But now we are getting into some unreal territory. If a supporter of design was proposing that they would be shot down.

You don't understand statistics, do you?

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 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.

No I understand the puddle example the puddle in that there is not fixed shapes to puddles and holes and that to the puddle it could think it just happened to be in the right hole. But that is not what the fine-tuning argument is about, so it is a bad analogy if there is only one puddle or universe. That is like saying we just happened to wake up with the right physical conditions for intelligent life in our universe because we are here. But that does not explain anything about how the right physical parameters got there instead on billions of other possible parameters.

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

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

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.

And as mentioned when using a multiverse or (puddle multiverse) to counter the fine-tuning argument then you are actually acknowledging the fine-tuning argument because you have to introduce many other puddles or universes with varying conditions and shapes to make our fine tune one just one of many and not so special. So the puddle example using one puddle does not work because rather then the water being able to mold to any hole it had to mold to a particular hole and it would have to explain how that particular hole got there to allow that rather than billions of other hole options.

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.

OK I see. Yes, that would be correct if there was a multiverse then we would just happen to be in the right universe. But also, a multiverse allows for many possibilities so there may be other you and me with slightly different experiences because the conditions were slightly different thinking the same thing and so on.

Sure, why not.