What evolution does NOT explain

[JohnR7]

What evolution does NOT explain, plays a FAR greater part in life as we know it, compared with what evolution does explain.

The universe maintains a very delicate balance in order for life to form as we know it. If the nuclear force were 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger we would not have any life at all, anywere in the universe. NOT just life as we know it, but no life at all. Forces that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory play a far greater roll in life forming itself. Esp. forming itself the way it is. If a delicate balance is not maintained then the elements needed to create life simply would not exist and there would be no life. There would be no carbon, oxygen, nitrogen & phosphorus. Even if these elements were to exist, if a delicate balance were not maintained they could not form themselves into life. If a neutron were just 0.1% more massive then elements essential for life would not be able to form.

Fred Hoyle has written extensively against theism and christianity, yet when he discovered the incredible fine tuning of the universe in the late 1970's & early 1980's he wrote:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. (Fred Hoyle)

One must "monkey" with the physics of the universe to get all the right elements to work together for life of any sort to take place. Once the elements have formed themselves into any sort of life the universe and nature must continue to adjust itself and maintain a delicate balance for life to continue. All of this has to take place before evolution could ever become a factor to consider.

Evolution maybe a part of this fine tuning adjustment process. But it does not in anyway explain the beginning or origin of a species or anything else.

 

[Hydra009]

How exactly does the Anthropic Principle disprove evolution?

John, you know GA is right down the hall...

 

[mikeynov]

What you're saying, in effect, is 'if the universe were set up differently, then we could expect a different outcome, perhaps no life as we know it.'

Boy, what a revelation. Now, demonstrate that the universe's abstract constants are malleable, and show us a universe or two to compare ourselves with so we can know the actual outcome of a differently set up universe.

Or are you just hoping nobody would notice the fact that your entire thesis implies the 'goal' of us, and that without said premise, your fine tuning argument falls to pieces? :-x

 

[Big Rob]

Forces that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory...

This says it all, really.

 

[Lonnie]

"How exactly does the Anthropic Principle disprove evolution?"

I dont think it dispoves evolution, it just shows how much more reasonable it is to believe that there is a God who created everything, then to be atheistic.

 

[JohnR7]

John, you know GA is right down the hall...

Ah evos standard response number 2 evasion. "you got us on this one so we are going to evade the issue, ignore it and pretend it does not exist"

 

[mikeynov]

Ah evos standard response number 2 evasion. "you got us on this one so we are going to evade the issue, ignore it and pretend it does not exist"

Isn't that the creationist standard response number everything evasion?

Edit: zing!

 

[jwu]

Basically we're dealing with two possibilities here:
A completely atheistic origin of the universe, or an origin of the universe in which some sort of deity is involved.

In case of the first it doesn't matter that all these things have come together in such a nice fitting way, and that because of more than one reason:
1. If they would not fit, there would be no-one to wonder about it. If they fit, then eventually life could develop and later wonder about this.
This makes about as much sense as throwing a high number of dice and then saying "whoa, the odds that they came up with this results were astronomical!"

Either something develops which later wonders about this, or no such thing develops and there is no one to say "ha, i told you it wouldn't happen". It's tautological in some way.

2. We don't know how many universes are out there in first instance. There indeed might be like 10^100000000 or even an infinite number of other completely lifeless universes. Under these circumstances odds lose any significance too.

The other possibility was some sort of theistic origin of the universe and/or life. In that case there aren't any problems with odds either.

 

[JohnR7]

Or are you just hoping nobody would notice the fact that your entire thesis implies the 'goal' of us, and that without said premise, your fine tuning argument falls to pieces? :-x

You are wrong. You assume, you speculate that if it were not us it would be something different. If it were not "US" or the universe as we know it, then there would be nothing. That is the alternative.

You want to choose between us and something us, but the choice is Us or nothing. No life, zip, zero, zilch. The elements in this universe simply can not be anything other than what they are and still maintain life.

 

[Big Rob]

"How exactly does the Anthropic Principle disprove evolution?"

I dont think it dispoves evolution, it just shows how much more reasonable it is to believe that there is a God who created everything, then to be atheistic.

So your belief in God is just as reasonable as my belief that the universe arose through the actions of a leprechaun, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and O.J Simpson?

 

[mikeynov]

You are wrong. You assume, you speculate that if it were not us it would be something different. If it were not "US" or the universe as we know it, then there would be nothing. That is the alternative.

You want to choose between us and something us, but the choice is Us or nothing. No life, zip, zero, zilch.

I would guess that life as we know it wouldn't exist.

How do you know what WOULD exist in a universe with an entirely different setup? I'm guessing that since this question isn't answerable by the world's greatest physicists, that JohnR7 on Christianforums isn't in a much better position to answer.

Either way, this is a fallacious argument. And irrelevent to the reality of evolution - because the universe is a certain way. If you feel more comfortable with fruity ID teleology to explain why the universe is configured as is, more power to you. But what the heck does this have to do with evolution itself?

Or is this another one of those 'WHY DOESN'T EVOLUTION EXPLAIN COSMOLOGY' threads that demonstrate a laughable lack of understanding of science?

 

[Wakeup2god]

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology

Wouldn't that fit in with the theory that we're simply glorified monkeys!

 

[Deamiter]

Again, I'll quote you:

Forces that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory play a far greater roll in life forming itself.

I'm quite mystified as to why you would think a biological theory that assumes (and always WILL assume3) that life already exists would even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life. It quite satisfactorily explains the origin of every species on the planet.

Are evolutionists evading the issue? Um... I'm not sure HOW we could! By definition, the theory of evolution deals with our universe the way it is. To try to explain to you how evolution explains why a neutron has the mass of a neutron would be similar to explaining how the Bible predicts the existance of my computer. There is no connection, therefore nothing to explain or evade!

 

[JohnR7]

So your belief in God is just as reasonable as my belief that the universe arose through the actions of a leprechaun, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and O.J Simpson?

This is NOT an apologetics arguement. This is an arguement that shows that the theory of evolution is defunct because it does not do what they claim it does. You will need another thoery to explain life as we know it and why or how it maintains the delicate balance that it does. Evolution theory falls way to short of getting the job done.

 

[Big Rob]

This is NOT an apologetics arguement. This is an arguement that shows that the theory of evolution is defunct because it does not do what they claim it does. You will need another thoery to explain life as we know it and why or how it maintains the delicate balance that it does. Evolution theory falls way to short of getting the job done.

Wait...

John's first post: These forces have nothing to with evolution (paraphrase)

Now: This invalidates evolution.

You can invalidate a theory using data that has nothing to do with that theory?

 

[JohnR7]

I'm quite mystified as to why you would think a biological theory that assumes (and always WILL assume3) that life already exists would even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life.

Because physics trumps biology and your theory is to short sighted at explaining why life is the way it is. If you have no elements you have no biology.

 

[Lonnie]

It is more logical to believe that the universe was caused by an all powerful God, who claimed to have created the universe. Then to believe that the universe has no cause, and that nothing caused the universe into being.

(if you dont understand why it is more logical, and you would like to understand why, then you should try reading the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist")

 

[ForeRunner]

You want to choose between us and something us, but the choice is Us or nothing. No life, zip, zero, zilch. The elements in this universe simply can not be anything other than what they are and still maintain life.

False dichotomy. There are an infinite number of other choices, we are only one of them.

 

[JohnR7]

To try to explain to you how evolution explains why a neutron has the mass of a neutron would be similar to explaining how the Bible predicts the existance of my computer. There is no connection, therefore nothing to explain or evade!

The connection is that the elements can only fit together one way. Evolutionary theory is a VERY small part of that. There is no other way to fit it all together. The elements simply will not allow for that.

 

[JohnR7]

False dichotomy. There are an infinite number of other choices, we are only one of them.

No there are not a infinite number of choices, that is not true. Only on a very superficial level. When you get down to the nuts and the bolts it can all only fit together one way.