Natural selection v Intelligent design

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No one denies that there is a certain level of evolution at work. Creatures are able to change and adapt to their environments. Natural selection works within species. But what is in question is the level and capability that evolution can occur. Evolutionists give it more creative power than it has. They take what has been proven and is true and them spectulate that it can move beyond the species and create new types of animal.s

How do you define a 'type' of animal? Do you mean Class of animal? Can you not grasp how two populations of one species separated by some impassable geographic feature can evolve independently by a number of small changes so that they can no longer mate, or no longer produce viable offspring? Did you not read the link on Ring Species?

Snowflakes actually reflect the complexity of water molecules in that they have many different shapes. They will always form hexagonal shapes.

Not true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...But as with life we only know that life is on earth and the universe is just right to have that life. This is why scientists want to include the idea of a multiverse.

Nope.

 

[stevevw]

How do you define a 'type' of animal? Do you mean Class of animal? Can you not grasp how two populations of one species separated by some impassable geographic feature can evolve independently by a number of small changes so that they can no longer mate, or no longer produce viable offspring? Did you not read the link on Ring Species?

Not true.

Yes I agree this can happen but this doesn't mean that they will then continue to change and become different shaped animals like evolution likes to paint. For example a dog like creature being Pakicetus becoming an aquatic creature and eventually a whale. There are many species of bats but they are all still bats. Even Darwin said that the many species of one animal is really only showing the vast variations between the same type of animal.

But evolution assumes that because a species varies that this variation also has the creative power to change a animal into another different shaped one. This is only speculation based on what is true and proven. There is no direct evidence for macro evolution apart from the assertions that are made. The fossil record doesn't support this and nor does the genetic evidence. The tree of life shows many contradictions to the evolutionary paths that evolution has painted through the transitions they have made from observational speculation of similar anatomy and fossil records.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... this doesn't mean that they will then continue to change and become different shaped animals...

Almost all populations change shape in the long term; how much change can occur before the creature has a 'different shape' by your assessment? What, exactly, do you mean by 'different shape'? For example, is a penguin's flipper a 'different shape' from a seagull's wing, in your shape schema? Are walruses, sea lions, seals, and manatees the same 'type' of animal, with the 'same shape'? If not, explain why.

The tree of life shows many contradictions to the evolutionary paths that evolution has painted

What was the model for this 'tree of life', if not evolutionary theory? I'd like to see this tree laid out - do you have a reference or a diagram?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I agree this can happen but this doesn't mean that they will then continue to change and become different shaped animals like evolution likes to paint. For example a dog like creature being Pakicetus becoming an aquatic creature and eventually a whale. There are many species of bats but they are all still bats. Even Darwin said that the many species of one animal is really only showing the vast variations between the same type of animal.

Of course they are! They are also still mammals, chordates, and animals!

But evolution assumes that because a species varies that this variation also has the creative power to change a animal into another different shaped one.

What counts as "another different shaped one"?

This is only speculation based on what is true and proven. There is no direct evidence for macro evolution apart from the assertions that are made. The fossil record doesn't support this and nor does the genetic evidence.

This simply isn't true.

 

[stevevw]

Almost all populations change shape in the long term; how much change can occur before the creature has a 'different shape' by your assessment? What, exactly, do you mean by 'different shape'? For example, is a penguin's flipper a 'different shape' from a seagull's wing, in your shape schema? Are walruses, sea lions, seals, and manatees the same 'type' of animal, with the 'same shape'? If not, explain why.

I guess this is where the genetics comes into it. sea lions and walruses are related so they may be from a similar original genetic blue print. The variation can be great. The fundamental debate is about whether the genetic info needed to make everything on earth came from a self creating process. Once there was no life and then it appeared. Naturalistic processes say that nature has the ability to somehow make complex things out of more or less nothing or less complex things. It somehow conjures up the extra complexity through time and as they say natural selection. But it still doesn't account for how the naturalistic process can create the complex new info that wasn't there for natural selection to work with.

The ID position is that an intelligent designer created the necessary info for life in the first place. Whether you believe in theistic evolution of creation of the varying models they all say that there had to be an intervention from a creator or something that could plant the building blocks for life for all life to draw upon. This makes more sense as the evidence for evolution is often contradictory and it cant explain many things we see like the gaps in the fossil records. It cant explain how mutations which are basically a mistake in copying what is already good and a cost to fitness can create better and fitter creatures. But ID can and does explain why there are gaps in the fossil records and how complex creates suddenly appear and how complex life can come about because that info has always been there.

What was the model for this 'tree of life', if not evolutionary theory? I'd like to see this tree laid out - do you have a reference or a diagram?

Well the creation model has it looking more like a forest or hedge of life where many creatures were created at the same time and the branching stems from many trunks and not one or two as with evolution. The evidence seems to support a forest of life and many scientists have questioned the Darwinian model as being the explanation for how life came about. To add to this life may be made to share genetic info through different animals, organisms and even the environment. So there may be many ways in which the blue prints for life were either already available or are shareable when needed. Animals can tap into a vast amount of genetic ability that may be needed to survive and change in the world around them It seems that the more scientists discover the more it is showing this with things like the so called junk DNA having more function that they thought.

But going back to the way evolution claims creatures evolve to change shapes and become new shaped creatures over time which relates to the tree of life having one stem. This is saying that every comes from one common ancestor and slowly gained more and more complexity and variety of shapes. This would entail millions of stages and we would see billions of fossils of slightly changed creatures. But for every successful one there should be 10 times as many unsuccessful ones that were deselected out of the populations. In fact there should be a lot of pretty sick creatures around today if mutations are the way creatures change their shapes and functions.

But if you look at the fossil records you will find a lot of things have actually stayed the same The only real change is that they are bigger versions of the same creatures that live today. Many of the basic body plans suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion which came pretty early in the history of evolution. So it indicates that complexity of life forms was there early in the process and too early for evolution to have slowly evolved that complexity.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...etics-reshapes-the-tree-of-life/#.UrrozvtbzTA

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The fundamental debate is about whether the genetic info needed to make everything on earth came from a self creating process.

You seem to have forgotten the questions; please give them a shot:
What do you mean by animal 'type'?
What is the smallest difference in shape that would qualify for a 'different shape' as you would assess it? (a couple of examples would be useful).
Is that degree of shape difference necessarily beyond the capability evolution?

Well the creation model has it looking more like a forest or hedge of life where many creatures were created at the same time and the branching stems from many trunks and not one or two as with evolution.

How does this account for the structural commonalities between different types of creatures? How does it account for the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, or the retrograde path of the vas deferens from ball up, over the ureter, and back down to the urethra? etc.

...going back to the way evolution claims creatures evolve to change shapes and become new shaped creatures over time which relates to the tree of life having one stem. This is saying that every comes from one common ancestor and slowly gained more and more complexity and variety of shapes. This would entail millions of stages and we would see billions of fossils of slightly changed creatures.

There were millions of stages, and there are billions of fossils (and every fossil will be of an individual that is 'slightly changed' from its parents - who probably weren't fossilized); we've only found an infinitesimal number of all fossils (and the oceans probably cover the remains of millions of species we'll never see).

But for every successful one there should be 10 times as many unsuccessful ones that were deselected out of the populations. In fact there should be a lot of pretty sick creatures around today if mutations are the way creatures change their shapes and functions.

Think about it at the population level rather than individual mutation level (whether a mutation is considered beneficial or not isn't as simple as it seems; see 'The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent'. The majority of mutations that come to term are relatively innocuous in themselves (see above) and fairly randomly distributed, so their effect tends to be a long term one; most are not clearly adaptive or maladaptive individually and in isolation. This is evident from current population statistics - estimates of human mutation rates are between 70 and 160 per generation (i.e. per individual), but sickness from genetic causes is age-related, from about 5.5% of the population by age 25, and rising to around 60% in later life including diseases with a genetic component.

It's also fairly obvious that major structural changes are far more likely in simpler, less specialised organisms, than more complex & specialised ones, and genetic 'cross-talk' is likely to be more frequent and more significant earlier in the evolutionary tree. Horizontal genetic exchange is just another means of variation, subject to natural selection like any other.

I'm beginning to feel like Dr Johnson, who said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

 

[stevevw]

You seem to have forgotten the questions; please give them a shot:
What do you mean by animal 'type'?

I use type because I find it hard to understand what evolution means by species. But it would be like a species. The reason I say type is that as with say bats there are many species that still look like bats. So I say they are the same type of animal. Even evolution has several meanings for species so its a bit ambiguous.

What is the smallest difference in shape that would qualify for a 'different shape' as you would assess it? (a couple of examples would be useful).

I guess any shape that makes a different animal. So a dog like creature

to a aquatic like creature in Kutchicetus.

(Pakicetus)
Its not just the shapes but also the features. Lungs to gills, legs to fins, arms to wings, complete changes in respiratory, nervous and cardiovascular systems. Changes in brain connections, bone structures, muscles, tendons and ligaments ect.

Is that degree of shape difference necessarily beyond the capability evolution?

Yes, minor changes may be just variations with the same species. So hair and skin color, eye color, sizes, shapes of heads such as longer chins or flatter noses, ect are all variations within a species. Variation can be great and cover large changes as well. There have been many cases where scientists have mistaken the variation with a species and made that variation into new species as with the skulls at Georgia. So there is a fine line between what is variation with a species and what evolution claims is new species. Even fossil finds that may look exactly the same as another creature but is found in an out of place layer will be turned into a new species rather than consider that it was the same species that never changed. Yet we see many creatures who have remained the same for millions of years.
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

How does this account for the structural commonalities between different types of creatures? How does it account for the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, or the retrograde path of the vas deferens from ball up, over the ureter, and back down to the urethra? etc.

I dont know I'm not a biologists to go into that level of detail. But the structural similarities between different creatures can be just a common design. If everything is based on the same blueprint or building blocks for life then we would expect to see similarities even in unrelated animals. Evolution calls this convergent but we are seeing more and more convergent evolution. We are finding unrelated animals with large chunks of the same DNA in each. How does evolution account for this. Maybe there is a lot more capability in our DNA than what evolution has given credit for. Maybe the so called junk DNA is able to switch on and off functions when needed. Maybe many creatures have similar DNA but only use what is needed. Maybe they can share genetic material more readily than we think.

There were millions of stages, and there are billions of fossils (and every fossil will be of an individual that is 'slightly changed' from its parents - who probably weren't fossilized); we've only found an infinitesimal number of all fossils (and the oceans probably cover the remains of millions of species we'll never see).

But we still dont see that graduation now or in the past. What we see is well defined creatures that are individual and not blended. What we find are lots of gaps in the fossil records. We see a lack of gradual structure change. Evolution will hold up an example of transition between two animals like Archaeopteryx but its well defined and its the only one. There is nothing in between. If Archaeopteryx has fully formed wings then where are the 100 other stages getting from no wings to fully formed wings. They show the gradual transition from ape to human.

But all they are doing is taking the variations of apes including extinct ones and picking out the best that suit that gradual change. Then they will do the same with humans to make a nice linkage of transitions. But why can they do that with every animal and line them up. They seem to have no difficulties find the ape men but always claim its hard to find fossils for the rest.

Think about it at the population level rather than individual mutation level (whether a mutation is considered beneficial or not isn't as simple as it seems; see 'The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent'. The majority of mutations that come to term are relatively innocuous in themselves (see above) and fairly randomly distributed, so their effect tends to be a long term one; most are not clearly adaptive or maladaptive individually and in isolation. This is evident from current population statistics - estimates of human mutation rates are between 70 and 160 per generation (i.e. per individual), but sickness from genetic causes is age-related, from about 5.5% of the population by age 25, and rising to around 60% in later life including diseases with a genetic component.

From what I have read mutations are mostly a cost to fitness even the beneficial ones. Everything comes at a cost because basically you are changing what was already good. So to say that a harmful error is part of the driving force for more fitter and complex creatures seems illogical and against the evidence.

It's also fairly obvious that major structural changes are far more likely in simpler, less specialised organisms, than more complex & specialised ones, and genetic 'cross-talk' is likely to be more frequent and more significant earlier in the evolutionary tree. Horizontal genetic exchange is just another means of variation, subject to natural selection like any other.

If all life was microbe to begin with and a microorganisms can freely exchange genetic material wouldn't that mean that all life had access to all the genetic material and has continued to have access as it has become more complex. Also 95% of all life is microbe anyway so if anything complex life would be a small offshoot of a bigger forest or bush of life.

I'm beginning to feel like Dr Johnson, who said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

I just pose the questions and challenge the general consensus of evolution. But it seems I'm not the only one.

 

[Foxhole87]

The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create.

The fact is the moths would be eaten or the random pattern or mark or color would have no selective advantage and be either left as is or have no benefit well before any chance of even a fraction of any meaningful picture was formed. But when you get a person who can design a picture putting everything in place you recognize that there was a designer straight away. An artists doesn't put a blindfold on and dab a blob on the paper and keep trying to paint his masterpiece that way. He would have all the parts and colors in the wrong place and be forever starting again. Either that or he'd end up with a big mess.

Every single outcome is exactly as likely as the outcome you consider "fine tuned". EDIT: So long as you consider they are all simply "random".

You didn't understand this when I was talking about the earth being one trial out of trillions, and you still don't understand this.

You represent an astonishing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[stevevw]

Every single outcome is exactly as likely as the outcome you consider "fine tuned". EDIT: So long as you consider they are all simply "random".

How do you work that one out. If it were compared to the fine tuning argument for life it would show that all the parameters pointed to a specific picture being made. The shapes were fine tuned to make specific fly shapes and the location on the wings were just right to make it all work. If you compare the random marks that would appear of the moths wings through a naturalistic process to the fine tuning example of life then we would have an attempt of life popping up all over the universe. On different planets. Some here some there, some one kind of strange life and others another. Some green colored creature or microbes others yellow all randomly popping up anywhere like the marks on the moths wings.

You didn't understand this when I was talking about the earth being one trial out of trillions, and you still don't understand this.

You represent an astonishing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If that is the case then why are there many scientists including non religious ones who acknowledge the fine tuning argument for life in the universe. I am not relating my own opinion on this but the views of the experts. I am only repeating what they have said. So if I am deluded then so are they. But to be honest maybe its the other way around because you seem to think that what is widely accepted is some sort of delusion and that what you think is right is reality.


Even those scientists who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event. In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium.

But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues: One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

So these are top scientists who are not deluded. They understand better than anyone about the fine tuning of the universe for life. But you want to make out that I am deluded and full of myself when all I have done is relayed something that many scientists have acknowledge and support. You just have to stop and think about this and stop dismissing it like its just some common event that you want to compare with your many examples. If this was the case dont you think the experts who are in a much better position would have suggested this as well. You are comparing apples with oranges and not addressing the fine tuning argument as it stands but are using irrelevant examples which are not the same as the fine tuning for life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There's no point debating this with steve. He doesn't listen.

 

[stevevw]

There's no point debating this with steve. He doesn't listen.

I do listen but as I have said before just because I disagree doesn't mean I am not listening. Its like inherent in your statemnet that I dont listen is " If I agree with what you say then I am listening". Is that what you are saying. That because I am not agreeing with you therefore I am not listening. I have read the replies and I have answered the questions back as to what people have said. This shows I have read them and listened to what they have said. I just dont agree with everything that has been said. Isn't that what a debate is about.

I have submitted evidence for what I have said and I am the only one who seems to be doing this most of the time. It seems others are saying I am wrong but they dont post anything to support this. If they do then I will respond accordingly and If I disagree then thats what debating is all about. I could say you are not hearing what I am saying as well. I have said it 10 times now but still you dont acknowledged it. Thats because you probably disagree.

Look at Foxhole87 he is saying many things are the same as the fine tuning of the universe for life. He is trying to use examples that say many things can be fine tuned like the argument for fine tuning and life. I am disagreeing. Should I agree with him to show I am listening. Yet the experts seem to support what I am saying. So should I just give in and go along to show I am listening. You seem to think that if someone disagrees and sticks to their stance they are wrong or ignoring things. Tell me how I am wrong about the fine tuning for life in the universe. No dont just tell me but have some evidence to support what you say as well.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do listen but as I have said before just because I disagree doesn't mean I am not listening. Its like inherent in your statemnet that I dont listen is " If I agree with what you say then I am listening". Is that what you are saying. That because I am not agreeing with you therefore I am not listening. I have submitted evidence for what I have said and I am the only one who is. It seems others are saying I am wrong but they dont post anything to support this. Tell me how I am wrong about the fine tuning for life in the universe. No dont just tell me have some evidence as well.

A reminder:

This is the last time I will say it, so listen carefully: you have already received an explanation as to why you are wrong, on numerous occasions in fact. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that no such explanation has been offered. In future, whenever you complain about this, I will link to this post to remind you that you have no grounds to complain.

 

[quatona]

Actually, I don´t even see what the rarety of an event has to do with pointing to design (as in "being intentionally designed").
So, for the time being, I am assuming that all those incredibly huge (resp. small) figures are just smoke screens.

 

[stevevw]

A reminder:

Humm I cant recall any explanation on the fine tuning for life. You seem to have this stock standard answer for everything even when it doesn't apply.
Oh and PS for what the reminder is referring to I also have a reminder. That I have noted your reminder to check the replies you are referring to and I have responded to those for which you will need to refer to.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, I don´t even see what the rarety of an event has to do with pointing to design (as in "being intentionally designed").
So, for the time being, I am assuming that all those incredibly huge (resp. small) figures are just smoke screens.

No they are the actual numbers calculated by the scientists which show how exact they have to be in some cases otherwise we wouldn't have life or the ingredients for life as we know it or even the universe in fact as we know it. So there's no smoke screen this is as clear as day. As for showing design my first point was to get some to just acknowledge that there was fine tuning without even bringing any design into it. But that has been like pulling teeth.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[quatona]

No their the actual numbers calculated by the scientists which show how exact they have to be in some cases otherwise we wouldn't have life or the ingredients for life as we know it or even the universe in fact as we know it.

Yes.

So there's no smoke screen this is as clear as day.

Did you even read my post? Or was there something about the first sentence that you didn´t understand?

 

[stevevw]

Yes.

Did you even read my post? Or was there something about the first sentence that you didn't understand?

Yes I did read it but as I said I hadn't even got to that point. Lets just say I was trying to illicit some acknowledgement about the fine tuning argument by giving it some air time. It seems I was hitting a lot of resistance about something that has been acknowledge by many and is accepted. Now why would that be.

As for linking the the rarity of fine tuning to design maybe this is partly why some have found it hard to acknowledge fine tuning because they may think the next logical step is to infer design or tinkering of the physical constants to be so exact. This seems to be the logical extension of the fine tuning of the universe for life. Its not so much the rarity but the precision in some cases to the points I have posted where it is so exact that it goes beyond a coincident or random accident. When you have over 122 of their conditions being met to be just right you have to start asking the question about whether there is some meddling of the conditions.

 

[Foxhole87]

I do listen but as I have said before just because I disagree doesn't mean I am not listening. Its like inherent in your statemnet that I dont listen is " If I agree with what you say then I am listening". Is that what you are saying. That because I am not agreeing with you therefore I am not listening. I have read the replies and I have answered the questions back as to what people have said. This shows I have read them and listened to what they have said. I just dont agree with everything that has been said. Isn't that what a debate is about.

I have submitted evidence for what I have said and I am the only one who seems to be doing this most of the time. It seems others are saying I am wrong but they dont post anything to support this. If they do then I will respond accordingly and If I disagree then thats what debating is all about. I could say you are not hearing what I am saying as well. I have said it 10 times now but still you dont acknowledged it. Thats because you probably disagree.

Look at Foxhole87 he is saying many things are the same as the fine tuning of the universe for life. He is trying to use examples that say many things can be fine tuned like the argument for fine tuning and life. I am disagreeing. Should I agree with him to show I am listening. Yet the experts seem to support what I am saying. So should I just give in and go along to show I am listening. You seem to think that if someone disagrees and sticks to their stance they are wrong or ignoring things. Tell me how I am wrong about the fine tuning for life in the universe. No dont just tell me but have some evidence to support what you say as well.

If the experts agreed with what you were saying, you wouldn't have to quote-mine them and link us to creationist rags in order to show us the experts agree with you. EDIT: Design and Nature is a creationist non-journal, primarily as a self-publishing outlet for its creationist editors.

You argue that the experts also posit a multiverse.

You, as an irrelevant, non-credible, non-authoritative source, dismiss their argument, on the grounds of personal incredulity.

You represent an inflated sense of self-credibility so much you should change your username to steveDK.