Fine Tuning

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is also funny when evolution is called a theory but in fact it is just a hypothesis.

No, it's not. Evolution is a theory. And a very solid, very well established one at that. It is even perfectly fine to say that it's probably one of the best established, most solid theories in all of science.

Given how well the eye is documented etc, have we done anything that can make evolution of eye hypothesis testable, verifiable and repeatable?

The evolution of the eye can be tested, just like any other aspect of evolution can be tested: by looking at the nested hierarchies in all of life: by comparing the anatomy and the DNA.

And it always exposes itself as a nested hierarchy, which is 110% in support of evolutionary history.
Common ancestry is a genetic and anatomical fact. People seem to forget that.

Here's a simple test you can do... Humans have a blind spot. This is because in the common ancestor that first evolved its "primitive" eyes, all the wiring was in front of the light-sensitive cells. These eyes were so primitive that they could only capture light and dark. Which was better then nothing, so it stuck. What also stuck, was the fact that all the wiring was in front of the cells... This caused a blind spot in all its decendents, which includes humans.

Sight evolved multiple times independently. So there are quite a few different "eye designs" out there.
So, here's a testable prediction: ALL organisms that find themselves on the branch of humans and which share the ancestor in which that "backward" eye originally evolved, will have a blind spot. This branch / nested hierarchy will be completely consistent with other aspects/features in that particular bloodline.

IN OTHER WORDS: find me a species of said branch of life that does NOT have this blind spot, and you will succesfully blow a serious hole in evolution theory. Good luck.

What's the explanation of the era of rapid evolution (while evolution is supposed to be slow)?

Are you talking about the cambrian explosion?
Just for your interest, that period of "rapid" evolution, is only "rapid" in terms of geological timescales. This period actually lasted some 80 million years. So, not so "rapid".

Anyway, there is nothing that states that evolution MUST be 'slow' (again: in terms of geological timescales).
It is rather expected to be slow, simply because of the nature of the process.

Because for a single change / mutation to spread throughout the population and become "fixed", as they say, that by itself already takes quite a few generations.
Then there's also the concept of reaching a "local optimum". Which means that given stable selection pressures, a species has achieved its "perfect" form. Quotes, because "perfect" here is relative.
When the environment/habitat changes (this can be climatological or it can be due to migrating species or whatever), then the selection pressures also change and the achieved local optimum might no longer be a local optimum.

Periods of "rapid evolution" likely go hand in hand with rather "drastic" environmental changes.
At that point, a species either adapts fast to the new world, or it goes extinct.

Most go extinct.

That extinction again drastically changes the habitat. It messes with the food chain and the overal eco-system. It frees up niches that can now be filled by other species. It lowers competition, so it gives extant species more "options". This in turn can also cause more "rapid" evolution. This will continue until there is a new-found balance in the arms-race known as evolution. Until new local optimums have been reached. And so it continues. And so it will continue for as long as there are organism reproducing with variation and competing over limited resources.

It's an inevitable process.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is also funny when evolution is called a theory but in fact it is just a hypothesis.

It is a well-tested theory. It is one of the best tested theories in all of science.

What's the explanation of the era of rapid evolution (while evolution is supposed to be slow)?

Which era do you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Yekcidmij]

An obvious difference between life and actual machines, is that machines don't reproduce with variation.

Why can't a "machine" be programmed to "reproduce" with some variation? It seems almost trivial depending on the complexity and "machine" involved.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why can't a "machine" be programmed to "reproduce" with some variation? It seems almost trivial depending on the complexity and "machine" involved.

Absolutely no reason that cannot occur. But since it has yet to be observed outside of the point in question (life), evidence for intelligent design is lacking.

ID is slightly off topic from fine tuning, but I will say that I find the idea to be incoherent. The watchmaker argument contrasts the watch (in question) with the forest (assumed to not be designed) to determine that the watch is fundamentally different in certain ways and hence is designed. Yet we are left to conclude that all of nature, in particular life (such as the forest), is designed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This is ridiculous.

These guys are trying to explain to you how an analogy only goes "so far" and that drawing an analogy between A and B, in no way means that A and B are the same thing.

And in response, you then state "then it follows that A and B are the same thing".

I mean, seriously, how intellectually dishonest can you be??

An obvious difference between life and actual machines, is that machines don't reproduce with variation. That's just 1 difference. A difference that goes beyond the analogy. A difference that shows that living things and machines are not the same thing.

Please learn the concept of what an "analogy" is, before disussing this any further, because honestly, the irrationality of your "argument" is through the roof.

How do you know that an extremely advanced machine may not do that in the future especially by learning how living things do it? This has already happened in many cases. Such as jet wings were made to be swept backward by engineers studying how birds fly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why can't a "machine" be programmed to "reproduce" with some variation? It seems almost trivial depending on the complexity and "machine" involved.

I wouldn't exactly call it "trivial".
But sure, given the right technology, I'll go ahead and agree it could be done.

I see no reason to assume that biological organisms, are such "machines" though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that an extremely advanced machine may not do that in the future especially by learning how living things do it?

I don't. But then those living things from which these self-replicating machines "learned" it, would still be natural entities.

This has already happened in many cases

Really? When?

Such as jet wings were made to be swept backward by engineers studying how birds fly.

Jets don't reproduce with variation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't. But then those living things from which these self-replicating machines "learned" it, would still be natural entities.



Really? When?



Jets don't reproduce with variation.

Nevertheless they have much more things in common with machines than they do with rocks which we know are not designed. So definitely they show many more characteristics of machines than they do of rocks or crystals. So the probability definitely leans toward them being designed by a designer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nevertheless they have much more things in common with machines than they do with rocks which we know are not designed. So definitely they show many more characteristics of machines than they do of rocks or crystals. So the probability definitely leans toward them being designed by a designer.

So to be absolutely clear, you're saying that God did NOT design rocks? What other parts of this universe did he not design? Did he design stars and galaxies, for example? What is the mechanism by which you make this determination?

 

[Ed1wolf]

So to be absolutely clear, you're saying that God did NOT design rocks? What other parts of this universe did he not design? Did he design stars and galaxies, for example? What is the mechanism by which you make this determination?

Not directly. He created the natural laws that produce rocks, cause star formation and galaxy formation so it is indirect creation. But there is no natural law that can create life, so this is evidence that direct design occurred in the case of life.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not directly. He created the natural laws that produce rocks, cause star formation and galaxy formation so it is indirect creation. But there is no natural law that can create life, so this is evidence that direct design occurred in the case of life.

No natural law that can create life? How do you know that? We find amino acids in outer space. We find alcohol in gas nebulae.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nevertheless they have much more things in common with machines than they do with rocks which we know are not designed.

How do you know that rocks aren't designed?

So definitely they show many more characteristics of machines than they do of rocks or crystals. So the probability definitely leans toward them being designed by a designer.

Wheter or not something is designed, has nothing to do with probability.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But there is no natural law that can create life, so this is evidence that direct design occurred in the case of life.

Wow, talk about an argument from ignorance.....

We don't know, so that is "evidence" that it was god.

Great.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nevertheless they have much more things in common with machines than they do with rocks which we know are not designed.

tm: How do you know that rocks aren't designed?

Because we know all the natural laws and processes that create them.

tmgoogletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1474449713049-1'); });

Almost all our knowledge is based on probabilities since almost nothing can be known with absolute certainty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because we know all the natural laws and processes that create them.

We also know the natural laws and processes that produced all the variation of life from a common ancestor.


Also, it seems like you are saying that if we do NOT know about those laws and process, that it then becomes okay to automatically assume design.

Is that really what you are saying?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Wow, talk about an argument from ignorance.....

We don't know, so that is "evidence" that it was god.

Great.

No, it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge. We KNOW that machines and complex linguistic codes (DNA) cannot come into existence from unguided unintelligent processes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge.

/facepalm.

When you say that "there is no natural law that can create life", what you really mean is that there is no known natural process.

That's literally ignorance, not knowledge.
It's also not the case that you can demonstrate that it is "impossible" for life to originate from a natural process. So, it most definatly is not a knowledge claim.

It is, as I said, a blatant argument from ignorance.

We KNOW that machines and complex linguistic codes (DNA) cannot come into existence from unguided unintelligent processes.

Biological organisms aren't machines and DNA is not a linguisitic code.

 

[dcalling]

It is a well-tested theory. It is one of the best tested theories in all of science.

How so? Has any one tested evolving a primate to human? Or even a clear single cell to multi cell organism? So far the only thing we were able to test does not show things able to mutate to anything significantly different, even under lab environments.

Which era do you mean?
Mark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

 

[dcalling]

I wouldn't exactly call it "trivial".
But sure, given the right technology, I'll go ahead and agree it could be done.

I see no reason to assume that biological organisms, are such "machines" though.

I actually agree with you on this one, sounds strange. The realization that we can't create real intelligence is my turning point.

 

[Ed1wolf]

/facepalm.

When you say that "there is no natural law that can create life", what you really mean is that there is no known natural process.

That's literally ignorance, not knowledge.
It's also not the case that you can demonstrate that it is "impossible" for life to originate from a natural process. So, it most definatly is not a knowledge claim.

It is, as I said, a blatant argument from ignorance.

Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life cannot come from non-life.

tg: Biological organisms aren't machines and DNA is not a linguisitic code.

Evidence that organisms are not machines? DNA transmits information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language.