Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Loudmouth]

If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. Now, it happens that to meet these various requirements, certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe, so stringent in fact that a biofriendly universe looks like a fix - or 'a put-up job', to use the pithy description of the late British cosmologist Fred Hoyle. It appeared to Hoyle as if a super-intellect had been 'monkeying' with the laws of physics. He was right in his impression. On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears, the universe seems to be 'just right' for life, in many intriguing ways. No scientific explanation for the universe can be deemed complete unless it accounts for this appearance of judicious design. Until recently, 'the Goldilocks factor' was almost completely ignored by scientists. Now, that is changing fast. As I shall discuss in the following chapters, science is at last coming to grips with the enigma of why the universe is so uncannily fit for life. The explanation entails understanding how the universe began and evolved into its present form, and knowing what matter is made of and how it is shaped and structured by the different forces of nature. Above all, it requires us to probe the very nature of physical laws.

"The Goldilocks Enigma" Paul Davies.

Is there only one temperature of porridge, measured down to the tenth degree Celcius, that is suitable for Goldilocks, or is there a range of temperatures that Goldilocks would find "just right"?

 

[Loudmouth]

"For an analogy, suppose that there is a planet called Earthprime, in every respect identical to our own, except that on this planet mankind developed the science of physics without knowing anything about astronomy. (E.g., one might imagine that Earthprime's surface is perpetually covered by clouds.) Just as on earth, students on Earthprime would find tables of fundamental constants at the back of their physics textbooks. These tables would list the speed of light, the mass of the electron, and so on, and also another "fundamental" constant having the value 1.99 calories of energy per minute per square centimeter, which gives the energy reaching Earthprime's surface from some unknown source outside. On earth this is called the solar constant because we know that this energy comes from the sun, but no one on Earthprime would have any way of knowing where this energy comes from or why this constant takes this particular value. Some physicist on Earthprime might note that the observed value of this constant is remarkably well suited to the appearance of life. If Earthprime received much more or much less than 2 calories per minute per square centimeter the water of the oceans would instead be vapor or ice, leaving Earthprime with no liquid water or reasonable substitute in which life could have evolved. The physicist might conclude that this constant of 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter had been finetuned by God for man's benefit. More skeptical physicists on Earthprime might argue that such constants are eventually going to be explained by the final laws of physics, and that it is just a lucky accident that they have values favorable for life. In fact, both would be wrong. When the inhabitants of Earthprime finally develop a knowledge of astronomy, they learn that their planet receives 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter because, like earth, it happens to be about 93 million miles away from a sun that produces 5,600 million million million million calories per minute, but they also see that there are other planets closer to their sun that are too hot for life and more planets farther from their sun that are too cold for life and doubtless countless other planets orbiting other stars of which only a small proportion are suitable for life. When they learn something about astronomy, the arguing physicists on Earthprime finally understand that the reason why they live on a world that receives roughly 2 calories per minute per square centimeter is just that there is no other kind of world where they could live. We in our part of the universe may be like the inhabitants of Earthprime before they learn about astronomy, but with other parts of the universe instead of other planets hidden from our view.(Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," )

 

[PsychoSarah]

How does that relate?

The point is, even life as we know it has wiggle room.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The point is, even life as we know it has wiggle room.

What wiggle room did the universe have that allowed life to either exist or not to exist?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What wiggle room did the universe have that allowed life to either exist or not to exist?

-_- I think it is pretty obvious the fact that most of not all characteristics of the universe necessarily have to be exactly as they are for life to exist is the wiggle room.

But also, this "fine tuning" argument loses all weight if the only possible physics a universe can have at all are the ones we experience. If every universe that could ever develop has essentially the same physics, without it even being possible for a universe to exist without the potential for life, it sort of blows the fine tuning idea out of the water.

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- I think it is pretty obvious the fact that most of not all characteristics of the universe necessarily have to be exactly as they are for life to exist is the wiggle room.

So you are claiming that the Scientists are incorrect? On what basis do you feel they are incorrect?

But also, this "fine tuning" argument loses all weight if the only possible physics a universe can have at all are the ones we experience. If every universe that could ever develop has essentially the same physics, without it even being possible for a universe to exist without the potential for life, it sort of blows the fine tuning idea out of the water.

Exactly, which is why there is a fine tuning issue. According to the scientists the universe could have had a multitude of values.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"For an analogy, suppose that there is a planet called Earthprime, in every respect identical to our own, except that on this planet mankind developed the science of physics without knowing anything about astronomy. (E.g., one might imagine that Earthprime's surface is perpetually covered by clouds.) Just as on earth, students on Earthprime would find tables of fundamental constants at the back of their physics textbooks. These tables would list the speed of light, the mass of the electron, and so on, and also another "fundamental" constant having the value 1.99 calories of energy per minute per square centimeter, which gives the energy reaching Earthprime's surface from some unknown source outside. On earth this is called the solar constant because we know that this energy comes from the sun, but no one on Earthprime would have any way of knowing where this energy comes from or why this constant takes this particular value. Some physicist on Earthprime might note that the observed value of this constant is remarkably well suited to the appearance of life. If Earthprime received much more or much less than 2 calories per minute per square centimeter the water of the oceans would instead be vapor or ice, leaving Earthprime with no liquid water or reasonable substitute in which life could have evolved. The physicist might conclude that this constant of 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter had been finetuned by God for man's benefit. More skeptical physicists on Earthprime might argue that such constants are eventually going to be explained by the final laws of physics, and that it is just a lucky accident that they have values favorable for life. In fact, both would be wrong. When the inhabitants of Earthprime finally develop a knowledge of astronomy, they learn that their planet receives 1.99 calories per minute per square centimeter because, like earth, it happens to be about 93 million miles away from a sun that produces 5,600 million million million million calories per minute, but they also see that there are other planets closer to their sun that are too hot for life and more planets farther from their sun that are too cold for life and doubtless countless other planets orbiting other stars of which only a small proportion are suitable for life. When they learn something about astronomy, the arguing physicists on Earthprime finally understand that the reason why they live on a world that receives roughly 2 calories per minute per square centimeter is just that there is no other kind of world where they could live. We in our part of the universe may be like the inhabitants of Earthprime before they learn about astronomy, but with other parts of the universe instead of other planets hidden from our view.(Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," )

Nice story and a great hope for science. Speculation is always a good motivator in science but in this case just that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you are claiming that the Scientists are incorrect? On what basis do you feel they are incorrect?



Exactly, which is why there is a fine tuning issue. According to the scientists the universe could have had a multitude of values.

1. Is it so awfull that I would question others? Again, physics isn't like biology, there is a lot more we don't know, and a lot more disagreement. True, a small number of aspects of physics don't have much of a margin for error when it comes to life as we know it, but I feel that you personally are overestimating how many physics properties that is.

2. According to the scientists again, you are starting to almost sound like a caricature of atheism with trusting the words of people who agree with you so strongly, and in physics of all things. Yes, I acknowledge many physicists propose that physics can play out in multiple ways, often putting it alongside multiverse theory. This doesn't mean they think OUR universe could have ended up with vastly different physics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Is it so awfull that I would question others? Again, physics isn't like biology, there is a lot more we don't know, and a lot more disagreement. True, a small number of aspects of physics don't have much of a margin for error when it comes to life as we know it, but I feel that you personally are overestimating how many physics properties that is.

Do you question others in biology? Just curious. There is a lot we don't know in biology. How many aspects of physics do you feel are known to allow for life on earth?

2. According to the scientists again, you are starting to almost sound like a caricature of atheism with trusting the words of people who agree with you so strongly, and in physics of all things. Yes, I acknowledge many physicists propose that physics can play out in multiple ways, often putting it alongside multiverse theory. This doesn't mean they think OUR universe could have ended up with vastly different physics.

They have no reason or law that specifies that our universe had to be the way it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice story and a great hope for science. Speculation is always a good motivator in science but in this case just that.

Says the person who believes that a deity magically poofed the universe into being without any evidence to back it up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you question others in biology? Just curious. There is a lot we don't know in biology. How many aspects of physics do you feel are known to allow for life on earth?


They have no reason or law that specifies that our universe had to be the way it is.

1. Of course I question others in biology, I even perform experiments myself sometimes when I can. However, I can check many more sources and experimental research in biology than I can in physics, so I am more sure of most of the biology conclusions than any of the physics ones. Plus, there are things I disagree with in regards to biology, I have brought them up on occasion. For example, I take the idea of a universal common ancestor as potentially having alternatives. There are also multiple theories of aging to consider, etc.

2. we are the ones who come up with these physics laws to explain observations, dingus. In the future there might be one that states exactly that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Of course I question others in biology, I even perform experiments myself sometimes when I can. However, I can check many more sources and experimental research in biology than I can in physics, so I am more sure of most of the biology conclusions than any of the physics ones. Plus, there are things I disagree with in regards to biology, I have brought them up on occasion. For example, I take the idea of a universal common ancestor as potentially having alternatives. There are also multiple theories of aging to consider, etc.

Great and by the way that wouldn't have surprised me. However, you still have not given me the number of values that must have been exceedingly precise in order for life to evolve.

2. we are the ones who come up with these physics laws to explain observations, dingus. In the future there might be one that states exactly that.

Very true, but we have not observed anything to come up with.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are claiming that the Scientists are incorrect?

"Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang."
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, there is a range between 0.6 and 0.8. There is wiggle room.

According to the scientists the universe could have had a multitude of values.

And each of these universes with different values will have features that are unique to that universe and those sets of values which makes every universe fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang."
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, there is a range between 0.6 and 0.8. There is wiggle room.

No, as you see if it were just 0.01 off either way from the 0.07 life would not exist as we know it.

And each of these universes with different values will have features that are unique to that universe and those sets of values which makes every universe fine tuned.

Fine tuned for what?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, as you see if it were just 0.01 off either way from the 0.07 life would not exist as we know it.

Then we have a range between 0.06 and 0.08. That is wiggle room.

Fine tuned for what?

For the unique features found in each universe that are not found or only rarely found in other universes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Great and by the way that wouldn't have surprised me. However, you still have not given me the number of values that must have been exceedingly precise in order for life to evolve.



Very true, but we have not observed anything to come up with.

Oh, the physics properties were in regards to life being able to exist, not evolution. Evolution is much more an issue of what the biology of said life allows than anything in regards to physics. I haven't given you the values because people debate this so much I don't feel comfortable mentioning any numbers. For all I know everyone is going to change them up again by next month, physics is a mess sometimes.

Lack of observation is a continuous issue in physics. A lot of the properties of our universe are not easy to observe or make experiments for.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then we have a range between 0.06 and 0.08. That is wiggle room.

You are incorrect, for life to be allowed it has to be 0.07 if it were 0.01 either way there would not be life. There is no wiggle room at all.

For the unique features found in each universe that are not found or only rarely found in other universes.

We are talking about the parameters that allow for life on earth as we know it. If there were another universe with different features the chances of it being life permitting is very small to impossible unless there were millions of said universes and even then the likelihood of life is miniscule. So even if the laws were a certain way it is not sufficient to claim that it would be fine tuned in the way that we find ours to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are incorrect, for life to be allowed it has to be 0.07 if it were 0.01 either way there would not be life. There is no wiggle room at all.

This is the lack of honesty I am talking about.

We are talking about the parameters that allow for life on earth as we know it.

That is the feature that is unique to our universe. In universes with different constants, we could find features that were unique to that universe and not found in our universe. This would mean that the other universe is fine tuned for those unique features. Every universe would be fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, the physics properties we in regards to life being able to exist, not evolution. Evolution is much more an issue of what the biology of said life allows than anything in regards to physics. I haven't given you the values because people debate this so much I don't feel comfortable mentioning any numbers. For all I know everyone is going to change them up again by next month, physics is a mess sometimes.

To evolve there are 26 features that are critical to the existence of life on earth and those are only the ones we know about.

Lack of observation is a continuous issue in physics. A lot of the properties of our universe are not easy to observe or make experiments for.

True but we are speaking about known properties and the requirements for life. We do know what it takes for life to exist and what the universe needs to supply it and how it does so precisely is known.

 

[Loudmouth]

To evolve there are 26 features that are critical to the existence of life on earth and those are only the ones we know about.

They are also critical for the development of the Face on Mars, as already shown.