Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

2,739 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

crookedspiral
4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Rather predictable that your only concept of "non-random" requires a designer. The same ignorance used by creationists.

Intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information; the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information; the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it.

Well no, not when you can't support it.

Look I can use your same logic; intelligent agents are known to be able to produce lightning; the best explanation of lightning is that an intelligent agent produced it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Universe is fine-tuned for life.

The exemples are plenty, as Martin Rees explains:

  • N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
  • Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[10][12]
  • Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
  • Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
  • Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
  • D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.[12]

Yeah.... Nah. 

 

Quote

In recent years many such examples of how the laws of physics have been "fine-tuned" for us to be here have been reported. Some religious people claim these "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of a grand design by a Supreme Being. In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, physicist Victor Stenger makes a devastating demolition of such arguments.

A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.

the-fallacy-of-fine-tuning.jpg

In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.

The most striking example of fine-tuning appears to be the dark energy - or energy of the vacuum - that is speeding up the expansion of the universe. Calculations show it to be 10120 bigger than quantum theory predicts. But Stenger stresses that this prediction is made in the absence of a quantum theory of gravity, when gravity is known to orchestrate the universe.

Even if some parameters turn out to be fine-tuned, Stenger argues this could be explained if ours is just one universe in a "multiverse" - an infinite number of universes, each with different physical parameters. We would then have ended up in the one where the laws of physics are fine-tuned to life because, well, how could we not have?

 

Religious people say that, by invoking a multiverse, physicists are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid God. But physicists have to go where the data lead them. And, currently, there are strong hints from string theory, the standard picture of cosmology and fine-tuning itself to suggest that the universe we can see with our biggest telescopes is only a small part of all that is there.

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Try leaving earth's atmosphere and see how fine tuned for life it is 

Or a visit to venus 

Or pluto 

Or Jupiter 

...... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

https://youtu.be/cO1a1Ek-HD0

 

I am displaying this as a link because there is surgery on an animal cadaver. If you are squeamish maybe give it a miss. 

Nature's not so perfect design. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
21 hours ago, Will Due said:

Well, there is a God.

And all of you know it.

Because if he didn't exist, all of you wouldn't be thinking about him ALL DAY LONG. :rofl:

You're wrong, but probably not in the way you think. No, most of us do not "know" there is a deity, because there's no evidence of one and therefore it makes no sense in believing in one. Spending time thinking about one in no way betrays belief in such things, for the same reason that someone being really into celtic mythology betrays belief in the celtic gods, or an interest in Spiderman and the fictional Marvel universe betrays a belief in Spiderman. For me, religion is fascinating from a historical and sociological perspective, no different than my interest in general history, war history, anthropology, or linguistics. Having an interest in religion and spending time discussing it can be entirely separate from belief in that thing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
7 minutes ago, Podo said:

You're wrong, but probably not in the way you think. No, most of us do not "know" there is a deity, because there's no evidence of one and therefore it makes no sense in believing in one. Spending time thinking about one in no way betrays belief in such things, for the same reason that someone being really into celtic mythology betrays belief in the celtic gods, or an interest in Spiderman and the fictional Marvel universe betrays a belief in Spiderman. For me, religion is fascinating from a historical and sociological perspective, no different than my interest in general history, war history, anthropology, or linguistics. Having an interest in religion and spending time discussing it can be entirely separate from belief in that thing.

Well said. "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
57 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well said. "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra"

 

The barbaric tribe of truth is on the rise, and no one will stop it.

It's barbaric to all who prefer the sharp edge of a picket fence to sit on in their discomfort, and much worse for those who flee the light of truth in their futility to the darkness of their moving shadows.

See the squirming going on in the world? Yup, it's barbaric for them. Especially when they keep trying in their desperation to turn off the light of truth  that now cannot ever be switched off.

It's the law of nature and it's by design. Evolve or perish.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
12 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The barbaric tribe of truth is on the rise, and no one will stop it.

It's barbaric to all who prefer the sharp edge of a picket fence to sit on in their discomfort, and much worse for those who flee the light of truth in their futility to the darkness of their moving shadows.

See the squirming going on in the world? Yup, it's barbaric for them. Especially when they keep trying in their desperation to turn off the light of truth  that now cannot ever be switched off.

It's the law of nature and it's by design. Evolve or perish.

 

 

Will, you display thoroughly parochial attitude toward everyone you encounter, here. The quote exemplifies it and the above post simply reinforces the assessment. You're like a small town boy wandering around in the heart of New York city, bewildered and unable to understand the riot of myriad cultures and peoples around you, unwilling to comprehend why they don't think and act as you do. You should embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and start talking to people and not at them. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
29 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Will, you display thoroughly parochial attitude toward everyone you encounter, here. The quote exemplifies it and the above post simply reinforces the assessment. You're like a small town boy wandering around in the heart of New York city, bewildered and unable to understand the riot of myriad cultures and peoples around you, unwilling to comprehend why they don't think and act as you do. You should embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and start talking to people and not at them. 

 

Thanks for your advice.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
17 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

What about my will?

 

 

Never mind, I thought that was your first name - obviously, my mistake..! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
19 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Universe is fine-tuned for life.

The exemples are plenty, as Martin Rees explains:

  • N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
  • Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[10][12]
  • Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
  • Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
  • Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
  • D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.[12]

Of course life is adapted to the conditions of this universe. This doesn't prove a god/gods, all it proves is that life is adated to live in the universe where it lives. Not very surprising is it ?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book.

You can it read it here:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent
years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The claim is that in the space of
possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of
intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases
of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well
as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by
Victor Stenger’s recent bookThe Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed
for Us. Stenger claims that all known fine-tuning cases can be explained without the need
for a multiverse. Many of Stenger’s claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will
touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and
symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation
and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation;
the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world;
the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also
provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I
do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent
life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger’s book, or read independently.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
On 2/8/2018 at 0:12 AM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

513vx3.jpg

I recently came across this excellent book by Perry Marshall. It pretty much bridge the gap between neo-darwinism and intelligent design, giving birth to what should be named Evolution 2.0. It's the theory of intelligent Design on steroids - evolutionary creation of the Universe - giving us a picture that makes a lot more sense than a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.

 

It's time to reopen the debate once more.

Whoever said the Universe was a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.  Everything in this universe is of a circular design.  Spinning circles.  What is random about that.  But it in no way means that an Energy Field outside of the Universe caused another Energy field that had never previously existed to miraculously exist.  There is Energy...and in it is infinite in it's depth and latitude.

This Universe is eons old...and we haven't the foggiest idea how big it is or how long it has been in existence.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
Just now, joc said:

Whoever said the Universe was a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.

 

Neo-Darwnism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Neo-Darwnism.

I don't know Neo.   Probably a nice guy...I don't know.

What I do know is that I have a brain.  That brain has thoughts of its own.  The one's that make sense when I think them are the ones I allow to hang out in my head.  My head.  My thoughts.  Try it sometime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That is HILLARIOUS!!!!!!! 

:)

What have they got for the duck-billed platypus?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Neo-Darwnism.

You can do better than that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

What have they got for the duck-billed platypus?

God - And our work here is complete! Hang on, what's that? 

Angel - Hmm, oh that! Nothing important, must have missed some bits when I was screwing the other animals together. 

God - Listen, Dad said make sure to use ALL the bits...

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
13 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

What have they got for the duck-billed platypus?

This one was my favorite:

 

how-animals-were-created-god-funny-animal-tweets-50-577b9227c747a__700.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
On 2/9/2018 at 1:58 PM, Will Due said:

 

The barbaric tribe of truth is on the rise, and no one will stop it.

It's barbaric to all who prefer the sharp edge of a picket fence to sit on in their discomfort, and much worse for those who flee the light of truth in their futility to the darkness of their moving shadows.

See the squirming going on in the world? Yup, it's barbaric for them. Especially when they keep trying in their desperation to turn off the light of truth  that now cannot ever be switched off.

It's the law of nature and it's by design. Evolve or perish.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
30 minutes ago, davros of skaro said:

 

 

Friggin hilarious!

I've never been so cleaned up in my life. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 10/02/2018 at 3:37 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book.

You can it read it here:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent
years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The claim is that in the space of
possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of
intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases
of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well
as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by
Victor Stenger’s recent bookThe Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed
for Us. Stenger claims that all known fine-tuning cases can be explained without the need
for a multiverse. Many of Stenger’s claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will
touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and
symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation
and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation;
the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world;
the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also
provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I
do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent
life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger’s book, or read independently.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

And Stenger shut him back down again 

Quote

Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning
Victor J. Stenger
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
January 28, 2012
Abstract
In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the 
Universe is Not Designed for Us. It investigated a common claim found in 
contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology 
are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the 
universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of 
life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters,
some form of life could have evolved over a parameter range that is not 
infinitesimal, as often claimed. Postdoctoral fellow Luke Barnes has written a 
lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning 
problem. I have no significant disagreement with that literature and no 
prominent physicist or cosmologist has disputed my basic conclusions. Barnes 
does not invalidate these conclusions and misunderstands and misrepresents 
much of what is in the book.
1. Introduction
In 2011, I published a popular-level book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the 
Universe is Not Designed for Us.
1 It investigated a common claim found in 
contemporary religious literature that the parameters of physics and cosmology 
are so delicately balanced, so “fine-tuned,” that any slight change and life in the 
universe would have been impossible. I concluded that while the precise form of 
life we find on Earth would not exist with slight changes in these parameters,

 

 

We can exchange links all day long, all that proves us you don't understand that arguments so you post swathes of text getting others to speak fir you. I really doubt you understand the arguments or even the philosophy behind them, I think you just hear what you want to hear and run with it. 

 

Why would a god have to make a fine tuned universe at all? If truly the all powerful being he is claimed to be then he could create anything to exist anywhere, what would be proof of a creator would be an impossible situation, life existing where it should not. 

Not where it should. 

Like I said, go for a stroll in venus and tell us how fine tuned it is for life. 

 

Sean Carroll. Nuff said. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/11/physicist-sean-carroll-dismisses-fine-tuning-argument/

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3057

 

1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
2. Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
3. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.
4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.
5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed. [Carroll considers this his most important point. Here he goes into not only the cosmos, but the nature of human culture which, Carroll avers, comports much better with naturalism than with theism. 

 

 

The fine tuned universe argument is just another godidit ramble with enough technical terms to bamboozle the average listener. I consider it intellectual bullying of proper science aimed at the average person. Its a rubbish argument that would have proved itself by now like the natural universe has with the discovery of the Higgs Boson if it had any merit at all. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.