A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[pitabread]

If you read some of the articles I posted on how the constants can vary they talk about a very slight difference in values being enough to not allow the type of stars for example that would produce the elements needed for life. So we don't even have to have any great variables of space possibility but just a tiny fraction will be enough to change things.

Nobody is denying that if things were different then things would be different. That's not the issue here.

The issue is claiming that the odds can be calculated with respect the existence of our particular universe. Nobody has the requisite information for that calculation.

I don't but the scientists who have written the papers do.

No they don't. Scientists are still trying to figure out the very nature of our universe and understand its origins. To suggest from that that they have all the pertinent information to make a meaningful probability calculations is assuming they possess far more knowledge than they do.

I listed out a serious of questions and if you go hunting for the answers you won't find them. And without those answers it's not possible to even begin constructing a meaningful probability calculation.

Yes and we are lucky to be here. If the possibilities were against it happening though doesn't it make it rare even after the fact. Remember the probabilities for fine tuning have been calculated at odds that go beyond chance so therefore impossible.

Whatever so-called probabilities you are referring to are completely meaningless. As stated, we don't have the requisite information to construct pre-hoc calculations. And post-hoc calculations are irrelevant because the odds of our universe existing is already 1, since it already exists.

You may attribute it luck. Others might attribute it inevitability. There is no way to prove either case.

So if someone said they won a lottery that had impossible odds you would think something fishy was going on.

You're right, because the fishy part is the claim of impossible odds.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...As I said there are associated reasons why belief is something more than magic and therefore lend support to valid reasons why people believe in a creative agent.

Indeed, you keep saying it, but don't give those reasons. I explained how people have valid reasons for believing in a creative agent, but that they don't make the belief itself logical or reasonable.

I happen to disagree with your conclusion that belief is just a predisposition to attribute agency and therefore render belief as unfounded...

I didn't say that. Please stop attributing your gibberish to me.

 

[stevevw]

Right. Once upon a time I thought we were debating whether a contingent process like evolution can be a vehicle of divine providence.

Yes but I think we have covered a few areas. Things can quickly be diverted into related areas. I think I mentioned about fine tuning being one of the indirect supports for a creative agent when debating the about the OP and things went down that road. I was relating to how functional proteins can be rare in the non functional protein space similar to fine tuned physical parameters within the non-fine tuned space.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes but I think we have covered a few areas. Things can quickly be diverted into related areas. I think I mentioned about fine tuning being one of the indirect supports for a creative agent when debating the about the OP and things went down that road. I was relating to how functional proteins can be rare in the non functional protein space similar to fine tuned physical parameters within the non-fine tuned space.

You may have covered a few different areas, but you haven't gained any ground. Suppose you do educe evidence for creative agency. What then?

 

[stevevw]

Indeed, you keep saying it, but don't give those reasons. I explained how people have valid reasons for believing in a creative agent, but that they don't make the belief itself logical or reasonable.

I have tried to explain the valid reasons why people believe. The papers I posted help explain this. If we are born believers and it is a normal part of cognition then it is natural. It is not irrational or illogical. Therefore there is good reason why we believe and look for divine agency which is similar to looking for love or nourishment to fulfill a real need. In fact being a non believer is going against what is natural and is harder to do and denying our real stae of being.

I didn't say that. Please stop attributing your gibberish to me.

OK I am sorry if I misunderstood you. But you did say
believers acknowledge that religious faith is not logical or rational.
In this way I thought you were saying that belief is unfounded. All I am saying is that the papers I posted say that this is not the case. Belief is not the result of evolutionary reasons of attributing events to hidden agency. That is my point it is something within us from birth and not something we have learnt to do through adaptive reasons or have been indoctrinated to do. Therefore being something natural like the need for love or to feed ourselves there is a good and real reason for it. So therefore because of the facts above it points to belief being true.

 

[stevevw]

You may have covered a few different areas, but you haven't gained any ground. Suppose you do educe evidence for creative agency. What then?

Then we have been able to include what I think is a reasonable option for understanding what we are seeing instead of rejecting things because of personal views. The only thing I am trying to establish is that a creative agent should be something that is included in any option for what we see. I do not think it is fair that we deny this just because ultimately we may not be able to directly verify things as this is also the case with other ideas being put forward.

 

[Speedwell]

Then we have been able to include what I think is a reasonable option for understanding what we are seeing instead of rejecting things because of personal views. The only thing I am trying to establish is that a creative agent should be something that is included in any option for what we see. I do not think it is fair that we deny this just because ultimately we may not be able to directly verify things as this is also the case with other ideas being put forward.

A creative agent is always a possibility. The existence of such an entity is unfalsifiable so can never be denied. What you appear to want to do is attempt to demonstrate its existence empirically, making it falsifiable. I fail to see why anyone would want to do such a thing.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody is denying that if things were different then things would be different. That's not the issue here.

The issue is claiming that the odds can be calculated with respect the existence of our particular universe. Nobody has the requisite information for that calculation.

I disagree as some of the articles I posted show that scientists can use experiments to see what happens when our constants are slightly changed. They have showed they can change and the possible variance space is not relevant as even a slight change causes things to break down to not allow the type of universe needed for life.

No they don't. Scientists are still trying to figure out the very nature of our universe and understand its origins. To suggest from that that they have all the pertinent information to make a meaningful probability calculations is assuming they possess far more knowledge than they do.

They don't need to know all that. They understand the standard model of physics for our universe and other accepted theories are based on this. They have used that as the basis and modified things from that. ie
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.

” Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Further, some theories that extend the Standard Model show how the constants could be shuffled in the early universe.
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws

"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,"
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html

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.
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws

I listed out a serious of questions and if you go hunting for the answers you won't find them. And without those answers it's not possible to even begin constructing a meaningful probability calculation.

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

 

[stevevw]

A creative agent is always a possibility. The existence of such an entity is unfalsifiable so can never be denied. What you appear to want to do is attempt to demonstrate its existence empirically, making it falsifiable. I fail to see why anyone would want to do such a thing.

No not really. I find that even suggesting a creative agent as a possible option getss knock down even before base 1. It is not even allowed to be considered. Empirically supporting a creative agent is something different to allowing it to one of the options. Allowing it to be one of the options allows more investigation and the prospect to exploring its validity further. But if it cannot be allowed as an option it can never even have that chance. It places a creative agent in the same league as other non-verified and possible options like a multiverse and string theory which can be explored further.

Here is a hypothetical. Say a creative agent is real. How do you think we could scientifically describe the supernatural effect. Could that description be discerned from a so called natural description. How do we know that what we are seeing is not how a creative agent works. As mentioned earlier math and physical laws only describe what is happening but they cannot create anything. If someone said that a large heavenly body such as a planet could be suspended in space some may think this is supernatural. So maybe what we are describing with science is just describing how a creative agent works.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Belief is not the result of evolutionary reasons of attributing events to hidden agency. That is my point it is something within us from birth...

These two come to the same thing

... not something we have ... been indoctrinated to do.

The basis for superstitious or religious beliefs is the evolutionary predisposition within us from birth. The particular form of belief, in general, is a matter of cultural indoctrination - which is why people generally have the beliefs of the culture they are raised in.

Once more, the fact that a belief is based on an inborn predisposition for some cognitive bias doesn't make the belief logical or reasonable. A non-religious example is the Gambler's Fallacy, which arises out of a predisposition to a cognitive bias called the representativeness heuristic.

 

[Speedwell]

No not really. I find that even suggesting a creative agent as a possible option getss knock down even before base 1. It is not even allowed to be considered.

I disagree with you entirely. I have been active in evolution/creation discussion groups like this for upwards of twenty years. I have always been up front about my faith and my belief in God as author of our being and have never been "knocked down" for it. It must be something you are doing.

It places a creative agent in the same league as other non-verified and possible options like a multiverse and string theory which can be explored further.

I find it highly objectionable that you wish to reduce the existence and creative power of God to the same level as alternative physical theories.

 

[stevevw]

These two come to the same thing
The basis for superstitious or religious beliefs is the evolutionary predisposition within us from birth. The particular form of belief, in general, is a matter of cultural indoctrination - which is why people generally have the beliefs of the culture they are raised in.

Once more, the fact that a belief is based on an inborn predisposition for some cognitive bias doesn't make the belief logical or reasonable. A non-religious example is the Gambler's Fallacy, which arises out of a predisposition to a cognitive bias called the representativeness heuristic.

From my understanding evolutionary change is genetic and belief as far as an evolutionary influence is as you said associated with societal and cultural influences that are transferred through each generation and not by birth. A person through acculturation can learn a different culture. But the papers I posted show that belief in divine concepts happens before any cultural or societal influences happen and is not indoctrinated. Belief does not have a gene and cannot be passed down through birth. IE

young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school
Children are born believers in God, academic claims

 

[stevevw]

I disagree with you entirely. I have been active in evolution/creation discussion groups like this for upwards of twenty years. I have always been up front about my faith and my belief in God as author of our being and have never been "knocked down" for it. It must be something you are doing.

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

I find it highly objectionable that you wish to reduce the existence and creative power of God to the same level as alternative physical theories.

I am not necessarily referring to the God you are thinking of. I am saying any creative agent or idea about a mind behind what we see. I agree that God is greater than any argument we could come up with to verify Him.

 

[Speedwell]

From my understanding evolutionary change is genetic and belief as far as an evolutionary influence is as you said associated with societal and cultural influences that are transferred through each generation and not by birth. A person through acculturation can learn a different culture. But the papers I posted show that belief in divine concepts happens before any cultural or societal influences happen and is not indoctrinated. Belief does not have a gene and cannot be passed down through birth. IE

young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school
Children are born believers in God, academic claims

"...that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." Nothing in that article would actually contradict FB's point, as the disposition to believe in universal Telos would be evolved to be innate, but the content of that belief associated with societal and cultural influences.

 

[Speedwell]

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

Perhaps, or perhaps it is the odor of biblical creationism which clings to your posts.

I am not necessarily referring to the God you are thinking of. I am saying any creative agent or idea about a mind behind what we see. I agree that God is greater than any argument we could come up with to verify Him.

You mean the Demiurge? That would be a fun discussion. Otherwise I don't see the utility in positing a creative agent who is not God as a mere alternative to mundane physical theories like multiverses, string theory, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From my understanding evolutionary change is genetic and belief as far as an evolutionary influence is as you said associated with societal and cultural influences that are transferred through each generation and not by birth.

Evolution results in genomes that produce brains with predispositions to certain behaviours. These predispositions are realised in various ways by social and cultural influences.

... the papers I posted show that belief in divine concepts happens before any cultural or societal influences happen and is not indoctrinated. Belief does not have a gene and cannot be passed down through birth. IE

young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school
Children are born believers in God, academic claims

There are no links to the studies, but if you read the examples, they are only consistent with a predisposition to attribution of agency. As Dr Barrat says, "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design". IOW, they are predisposed to such beliefs, which is what I've been saying.

The article title is just a typical eye-catching media hook to draw in readers.

You need to read such articles more carefully; your biases are showing.

 

[stevevw]

"...that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." Nothing in that article would actually contradict FB's point, as the disposition to believe in universal Telos would be evolved to be innate, but the content of that belief associated with societal and cultural influences.

So how can it be the result of a cultural and societal influence when we are born believers and have divine thinking even before the chance to indoctrinate.

 

[Speedwell]

So how can be the result of a cultural and societal influence when we are born believers and have divine thinking even before the chance to indoctrinate.

Not "divine thinking" but universal telos. According to the article children apparently are predisposed to believe that everything has a purpose. The questions of what purpose, whose purpose, are all up to cultural and societal influence.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution results in genomes that produce brains with predispositions to certain behaviours. These predispositions are realised in various ways by social and cultural influences.

Social identity theory shows as humans we identify who we are by the group we belong to. This includes culture, religion, political thinking. This accounts for the many different forms of thinking like communism, religion, atheism, totalitarianism, Marxism etc. If there was a genetic basis we would all be thinking the same or we could not suddenly change our thinking and beliefs yet we can.

The studies show that children will believe even in cultures where religion is withheld from them. This shows that it is not just evolutionary as the culture may be non-religious but children still think in divine concepts.
anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.
Children are born believers in God, academic claims

There are no links to the studies, but if you read the examples, they are only consistent with a predisposition to attribution of agency. As Dr Barrat says, "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design". IOW, they are predisposed to such beliefs, which is what I've been saying.
The article title is just a typical eye-catching media hook to draw in readers.

You need to read such articles more carefully; your biases are showing.

That's not how I understand the articles. The predisposition comes before any influence from culture or indoctrination. Religious belief is not a evolutionary influence. What the papers have found is something different. They talk about a sophisticated level of thinking and not some deep seated evolutionary influence that drives people at a sub-conscience level. Children can tell the difference between human made ideas and those of divine concepts relating to the afterlife and how the material world came about.

In the past ten years, the evolutionary and cognitive study of religion has begun to mature. It does not try to identify the gene or genes for religious thinking. Nor does it simply dream up evolutionary scenarios that might have led to religion as we know it. It does much better than that. It puts forward new hypotheses and testable predictions.
Religion: Bound to believe?

 

[Speedwell]

Children can tell the difference between human made ideas and those of divine concepts relating to the afterlife and how the material world came about.

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