Anthropic Principle

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Everything designed specifically for a purpose for us to live. Isnt this what Creationism is about?

 

[ZiSunka]

Kind of. Everything was created specifically for God's purposes, not necessarily ours.

"The LORD has made everything for his own purpose. " Proverbs 16:4

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by quizzler
Everything designed specifically for a purpose for us to live. Isnt this what Creationism is about?

Genesis 1 does not say that everything was designed for us.  Just that humans were given sovereignity over creation. 

Creationism states that each species (or "kind") was specifically "designed".  By "designed" here, creationists mean manufactured and placed on the planet in its present form.  Thus, biological organisms are artifacts like hammers, chairs, cars, airplanes, etc.

The Strong Anthropic Principle says that we are allowed to infer that the universe was made for living creatures because we are here in the universe.  The Strong Anthropic Principle is simply a mistake in logic.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Genesis 1 does not say that everything was designed for us.  Just that humans were given sovereignity over creation. 

Creationism states that each species (or "kind") was specifically "designed".  By "designed" here, creationists mean manufactured and placed on the planet in its present form.  Thus, biological organisms are artifacts like hammers, chairs, cars, airplanes, etc.

The Strong Anthropic Principle says that we are allowed to infer that the universe was made for living creatures because we are here in the universe.  The Strong Anthropic Principle is simply a mistake in logic.

Can you quote your source on that lucaspa?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by lambslove
Can you quote your source on that lucaspa?

Which one? Genesis 1 is referenced.  Creationistism?  See Scientific Creationism  by Henry Morris.

The Anthropic Principle?

"According to the Anthropic Principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing.  The Anthropic Principle comes in several flavors.
In the "weak form" it is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists.  If consciousness depends on complex physical structures, and complex physical structures depend on large molecules composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, then, since we are conscious, the world must contain such elements.
"But notice that there is a loose cannon on the deck in the previous sentence: the wandering "must".  I have followed the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way.  As any student in logic class soon learns, what I really should have written is:   *It must be the case that*: if consciousness depends ... then, since we are conscious, the world *contains* such elements.

The conclusion that can be validly drawn is only that the world *does* contain such elements, not that it *had* to contain such elements.  It *has* to contain such elements *for us to exist*, we may grant, but it might not have contained such elements, and if that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to be dismayed.  It's as simple as that. 
Take a simpler example.  Suppose John is a bachelor.  Then he *must* be single, right?  (That's a truth of logic.)  Poor John -- he can never get married!  The fallacy is obvious in this example, and it is worth keeping it in the back of your mind as a template to compare other arguments with."
Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, pp. 165-166.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by lambslove
Can you quote your source on that lucaspa?

For creationism:
"Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
[*]The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life."
[*]
[*]http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm 

 

[ZiSunka]

Okay. Thanks.

Sounds reasonable to me. Do you not agree with it?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by lambslove
Okay. Thanks.

Sounds reasonable to me. Do you not agree with it?

  Again, which one?  Dennett's analysis of the Strong Anthropic Principle? Of course I agree with it.

Creationism as in the ICR tenets?  Of course I don't agree with it.  The data shows it to be wrong.  Species transform from common ancestors by descent with modification.  Creationism is a falsified theory.

 

[ZiSunka]

Species transform from common ancestors by descent with modification.

What sound evidence do you have for that? Certainly you aren't saying that the fossil record shows evolution!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by lambslove
What sound evidence do you have for that? Certainly you aren't saying that the fossil record shows evolution!

We have observations in morphology, physiology, embryology, and biogeography that simply don't make any sense unless species transform.  And yes, the fossil record shows evolution.

In addition, there are at least 100 instances of observed speciation (those are the references I have and my literature search is by no means complete), including a paper in the Nov. 29 issue of Science on speciation in yeast.

In the fossil record, there are series of transitional individuals linking one species to another and going across higher taxa.  Most of these are in books and monographs that are not readily available, but they are there.This includes transitional individuals linking H. sapiens (us) back to H. erectus to H. habilis to A. afarensis. And when I say "transitional" individuals I mean fossils with features so in-between that it is purely arbitrary which species you assign them to.  Some of the references are below if you want to check them out for yourself.

Transitional series
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.  Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.  (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.  HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"  and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2.  http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm


PD Gingerich, Paleontology and phylogeny: patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals.  American J. of Science, 276: 407-424, 1980.  Transitional series between species of early horses linking "higher" taxa.  web site for horse evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
5.  PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.  Nature 330: 561-563, 1987.  Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years.  Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it. 
1.   Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981.  Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
2.  A trilobite odyssey.  Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972.  A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area.  Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form.  Describes transitionals.
3.  "Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record"  Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13, 1996.  The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", pgs 1894-1897.

Speciation:
1.  G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster  Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.  Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures.  Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2.  Speciation in action  Science 72:700-701, 1996  A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species.  Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.  Follow up paper in PNAS http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11757
6.  Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979.  Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.
3. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection.  Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
23.  de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.
6.  B Wuethrich, Speciation:  Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999.  Discusses allopatric speciation.
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are:  AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Is there examples of transitions from mammals to Reptiles? I think this is the same thing as trans-species evolution. I have never seen anything of this such that i know of.

I understand a species adapting and developing depending on different enviroments. But being a bird crossed with a monkey will never happen.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by quizzler
Is there examples of transitions from mammals to Reptiles?

Here's my all-time favorite transitional fossil picture that shows various intermediates in the transition between reptiles and mammals:

You can read the supporting text here.

 

[Sinai]

Anyone interested in the anthropic principle may wish to read the landmark scientific paper that is generally credited with initiating the principle: "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology," which was prepared and presented by astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter at the series of symposia in Poland commemorating the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus.

(Edited to correct typographic error in spelling)

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by quizzler
But being a bird crossed with a monkey will never happen.

It sure won't-- it's good to see you agreeing with science on this one! Study up a little on modern neo-darwinian theory and you'll see why your strawman is so rediculous.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by quizzler
Is there examples of transitions from mammals to Reptiles? I think this is the same thing as trans-species evolution. I have never seen anything of this such that i know of.

I understand a species adapting and developing depending on different enviroments. But being a bird crossed with a monkey will never happen.

LiveFreeorDie gave you some of the transitionals from reptiles to mammals (it went that way and not the way you said).  This is not an example of trans-species, because reptiles and mammals are classes.  The taxonomic order is species -genera -family - order - class - phylum.  Anything taxa "above" species is simply a grouping of species.  Going from one to the other starts with a simple speciation event, but to completely separate them requires dozens or hundreds of speciations, as the separated lineages accumulate the changes that eventually distinguish the two classes.  The separation is not smooth, with some features being added before others.

Mostly the sequence presented by LiveFreeorDie is an example of transitional species, although within that sequence there are transitional individuals between species.

Of course you won't get a cross between a monkey and a bird. Different classes.  The isolating mechanisms to keep one species from breeding with another are so massive between any bird and mammal that 1) they won't consider breeding, 2) their genitals are incompatible, and 3) even if you did artificial insemination, the genomes are so different fertilization wouldn't occur.

But, remember that evolution deals with populations of individuals and minor change from generation to generation. So, while one population is transforming to another, the changes within any one generation are so small that they don't prevent breeding.  It's only after we look at a couple of hundred generations later and compare it to what was before that it is apparent that a new species has arisen.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Sinai
Anyone interested in the anthropic principle may wish to read the landmark scientific paper that is generally credited with initiating the principle: "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthrpic Principle in Cosmology," which was prepared and presented by astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter at the series of symposia in Poland commemorating the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus.

Sinai, is that going to change that the Strong Anthropic Principle is still an error in logic?

The Weak Anthropic Principle is fine.  It is occasionally very useful. When physicists working on String Theory or loop quantum loop theory come up with equations that won't allow us to exist, then they know that the equations are wrong.

 

[Morat]

I've always found the true nature of common descent almost impossible to get across without doodling on a piece of paper. A lot of inverted cones, basically. People look at the endpoints and say "Look at all this distance!". It's like looking at the base of a triangle and arguing that the two sides could never meet.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Sinai, is that going to change that the Strong Anthropic Principle is still an error in logic?

The Weak Anthropic Principle is fine.  It is occasionally very useful. When physicists working on String Theory or loop quantum loop theory come up with equations that won't allow us to exist, then they know that the equations are wrong.

Lucaspa, as far as I know, Dr. Carter's presentation is still remembered almost three decade after he presented it primarily for two reasons:

1. It began discussion of both the anthropic principle and of the issue of whether all the myriad laws of physics were in fact fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe for our creation and development--as the amazing string of "coincidences" noted by Carter seemed to suggest; and

2. It offered a kind of explanation for the values of the fundamental constants (which had arguably constituted one of the most basic mysteries of physics) and some of the mathematical relations among some of those constants.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Sinai
Lucaspa, as far as I know, Dr. Carter's presentation is still remembered almost three decade after he presented it primarily for two reasons:

1. It began discussion of both the anthropic principle and of the issue of whether all the myriad laws of physics were in fact fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe for our creation and development--as the amazing string of "coincidences" noted by Carter seemed to suggest; and

2. It offered a kind of explanation for the values of the fundamental constants (which had arguably constituted one of the most basic mysteries of physics) and some of the mathematical relations among some of those constants.

#1 is the invalid logic. It is that loose cannon of "must" when the Anthropic Principle is misstated that Dennett talked about. I posted that several posts up.

#2 needs an explanation only because the constants seem only one possibility among an infinite possibility.  Of course, needing an explanation is also part of the error of logic, since you don't really need to explain the improbability.

However, scientists don't like improbability. Therefore several physicists have looked for ways to 1) either lower the supposed improbability or 2) increase the number of chances.  String or M theory offers the first because the constants become derivations of the vibrations of the strings and membranes.  Quantum Loop Theory also has the constants derived.  Examples of the second approach are the hypotheses of multiverse, bubble universes, and quantum splitting.

But as an ironclad argument for deity, the Anthropic Principle fails utterly.

 

[Sinai]

As nearly as I can tell, I don't think that Dr. Carter was attempting to establish the anthropic principle as "an ironclad argument for deity." His "Large Number Coincidences and the Anhropic Principle in Cosmology" merely noted that all the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics that are evident in cosmological studies have one especially noteworthy thing in common: They are precisely the values that are needed to form a universe capable of producing and sustaining life.

And Carter is not the only scientist to remark that the universe seems to have been designed for producing not only life, but intelligent life. You may wish to read some of the works by cosmologist John Wheeler or physicists Robert Dicke and Gerald Schroeder, for example.

Although some may wish to use the anthropic principle as an argument for deity, it is really a scientific observation regarding the unusual number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics that seem to be related only to the observation that such values had been necessary for the creation of life.