Evidence For And Against Evolution

[ecco]

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

If your "Intelligent Designer" created your finely tuned universe then you need to explain why He Finely Tuned it in such a way that favored cockroaches over humans.

If the universe is the result of "unthinking nature", then it is understandable the many species would precede and outlive humans.

 

[ecco]

The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

Then what exactly does the argument imply? What, in your opinion, is the universe finely tuned for? It sure ain't humans.

Perhaps your Intelligent Designer fine-tuned the universe for the existence of suns. Perhaps suns can communicate with one another. Are you suggesting that suns are the goal of your Intelligent Designer and planets, cockroaches, and humans are just products?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Perhaps suns can communicate with one another.

Kind of a cool thought. IIRC, each sun has a unique 'sound' and if you can bring those sounds into the audible range electronically, they each have a 'voice.' Put them all together and you have a 'solar choir' in a manner of speaking. Wonder what that would sound like?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable




The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

How do you know you cannot have life without atoms? I see, you are claiming the designer is a physical being and therefore exists in this universe and subject to the laws of it. No spirit. What is the molecular formula of the soul? How do weigh the holy spirit?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable




The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

The cockroach question is a very good question. You should be able to answer it easily, since you claim to have the evidence and argument that says designer. Still waiting for that argument too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, the claim is not that dolphins and bat's evolved 200 genes independently... These genes are present in all mammals

The claim is that bats and dolphins have the same variations of those genes, the implication is that bats and dolphins got the exact same mutations in the exact same location independently.

If 2 independent clades can have the exact same mutations in the exact same location multiple times, why can't mammals evolve Feathers independently from birds?

You forgot to add a citation for your claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, but finding land tetrapods that predate tiktaalik (and all other fishapods) should count as an incorrect prediction.

No and I already explained multiple times why that ain't the case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You completely missed the point. Perhaps that was intentional so that you didn't have to address it.

I'll try again...

Cockroaches have lived for over 300,000,000 years; humans have been around for 100,000.

Why did the Intelligent Designer Fine Tune the Earth for cockroaches?







Controversy? If cockroaches believed like Christian Fundamentalists, they would be correct in knowing that God looks like this...

Following your argument, you would have to agree that this is a good picture of the God who created your Finely Tuned Universe.




ETA: Viruses may object. The universe was more Finely Tuned for them than even the cockroaches. Perhaps, this is a true representation of The Creator God.

Or this thing right here:

The amount of nonsense that that creature can surivive is FAR beyond anything humans, or most other animals, are capable off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The claim is that the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc depends on a finely tuned balance of multiple constants and initial conditions.

Then we make a second claim, and suggest that life (both humans and cockroaches) requires atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc in order to exist...... (you can't have life, if you don't atoms for example)

Do you se and understand why the cockroaches argument is a strawman?

Note that both of these claims is testable, falsifiable




The argument does not imply that the universe is FT to maximize the number of planets with life.

Why do you find it so surprising that living creatures are alive in a universe in which they actually can be alive?

It seems to me that it would be far more impressive as a god-argument, if we would find ourself in a universe in which we wouldn't be able to exist, yet still existed.

 

[leroy]

Then what exactly does the argument imply? What, in your opinion, is the universe finely tuned for? It sure ain't humans.

Perhaps your Intelligent Designer fine-tuned the universe for the existence of suns. Perhaps suns can communicate with one another. Are you suggesting that suns are the goal of your Intelligent Designer and planets, cockroaches, and humans are just products?

The argument is that the universe is FT for the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc.

The claim is that life (both humans and cockroaches) require atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc. In order to exist.

Do you understand the argument or do you have further questions?

 

[leroy]

If your "Intelligent Designer" created your finely tuned universe then you need to explain why He Finely Tuned it in such a way that favored cockroaches over humans.

If the universe is the result of "unthinking nature", then it is understandable the many species would precede and outlive humans.

Granted, to say that the universe was FT for humans and not cockroaches is beyond the scope of the FT argument.


To make an analogy, your house was clearly finely tuned, for example your light bulbs are located exactly where the electricity cables are, if you move the light bulbs say 1cm to any direction, they would no longer get electricity from the cables and the bulbs would no work.

However your dog could make an argument and claim that the house was intended for him, and nor for humans..... My point is that whether if the house was intended for dogs or for humans is irrelevant, the FT of the light bulbs indicate the existence of an intelligent creator of the house, weather if he had dogs or humans in mind is irrelevant for the purpose of stablishing the existence of the designer.

The same is claimed to be true with the universe, while the FT argument does not show that the designer had humans in my mind as his main purpose, it does show that such designer probably exists

 

[Polymath257]

Granted, to say that the universe was FT for humans and not cockroaches is beyond the scope of the FT argument.

And, at this point, that the FT was for life is also beyond that scope.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just like The fact that you have the hability to kill a dog, does not automatically imply that you are responsable for the death of the dog that was found in the streets.

The fact that God can do anything (directly) does not automatically imply that he is the direct cause of everything.

But unlike God, I do not have the ability to kill a dog, but supernaturally make all the evidence appear as if I didn't....or, not kill a dog, but supernaturally make all the evidence appear as if I did.

Yes it is called " appeal to the best explanation" given the criteria commonly accepted in science like explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, parsimony, consistency with previous knowledge etc.... Common ancestry is a better explanation for NH than design. Wouldn't you agree with this point? Answer yes or no

Given that you've not described what ID creationism's explanation for anything is, your question is impossible to answer.

Common ancestry is the best explanation for NH, this is true regardless of the mechanism that caused the common ancestry.

Again, you admit that common ancestry and ID creationism can indeed be one and the same, thereby negating your point about one or other being superior.

I believe that the common ancestor came from God, you probably believe that it came from an organic soup, but regardless on who is correct it is still a fact that common ancestry is the best explanation for NH. Agree, yes or no

Common ancestry is the only scientific explanation for NH.

You wouldn't say that the NH are caused by the soup, just like I wouldn't say that NH was caused by God.

Then why were you previously invoking ID as an alternative explanation for NH?

 

[tas8831]

Well how do archeologists know that Neanderthals designed their own tools? Nobody has ever seen a neanderthal creating anything, so how do archeologist know?...

The answer is simple, one can infer design by just looking at the pattern

Human, yes.

So, as is the norm, the best you can do is promote humans as the Intelligent Designers - do you understand why?

Probably not - you don't understand your own argument re: Haldane's model.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The argument is that the universe is FT for the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc.

The claim is that life (both humans and cockroaches) require atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc. In order to exist.

Do you understand the argument or do you have further questions?

I'm not seeing an argument.
I'm seeing bare claims that you haven't even begun to try and support with a reasonable argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To make an analogy, your house was clearly finely tuned, for example your light bulbs are located exactly where the electricity cables are, if you move the light bulbs say 1cm to any direction, they would no longer get electricity from the cables and the bulbs would no work.

However your dog could make an argument and claim that the house was intended for him, and nor for humans..... My point is that whether if the house was intended for dogs or for humans is irrelevant, the FT of the light bulbs indicate the existence of an intelligent creator of the house

So, your argument here is that "cables being just long enough", is a sign of design?
Ever seen a laryngeal nerve in a giraffe?
​

, weather if he had dogs or humans in mind is irrelevant for the purpose of stablishing the existence of the designer.

Off course, the placement of lightbulbs is NOT how we identify "artificial design" in houses.

The same is claimed to be true with the universe, while the FT argument does not show that the designer had humans in my mind as his main purpose, it does show that such designer probably exists

So far, you've just asserted it. I have yet to see a reasonable argument that argues it.

 

[Polymath257]

The argument is that the universe is FT for the existance of atoms, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets etc.

OK, let's start with this.

First, what do you consider the fundamental constants to be? mass of the electron? Charge of the same? Mixing angle between neutrino favors?

Please list the ones you wish to work with. Make an argument that they are independent of each other.

Second, give and argument supporting the idea that these constants should be uniformly distributed. Alternatively, give and argument that they should be distributed in some pre-defined way.

It is only with such a notion that we can make any probabilistic assessment from the values we see today. If the constants *are* uniformly distributed, then one calculation would be made. But if they are NOT, then a calculation based in the correct distribution would be made. if this step isn't done, there is no reasonable way to proceed.

Third, Decide which aspects of the universe you wish to claim fine tuning for. Be specific (which atoms, what structure for stars, which molecules, etc). Or do you wish to argue for some general characteristics (some atom that can produce complex molecules, whether or not it is carbon, some liquid that serves as a solvent, whether or not it is H2O). Fine tuning is more supported if you can use a general property and it still turns out to be rare in your chosen distribution.

Fourth, and this is one quite hard, start from fundamental principles and determine the range of the constants on your list that give the range of values allowing for the characteristics in the last item. So, for example, clearly describe the range of values for the constants that allow for the formation of a carbon atom (or other atoms allowing for complex molecules).

Fifth, after completing the previous, use the assumed distribution to find the probability that a 'random' selection of the constants would lead to your criteria (atoms, stars, etc).

After this has been done, you have some sort of probability that a 'random' universe would have the conditions you listed. We can then assess whether that probability is high, low, or intermediate.

Of course, the question of whether an intelligence assigned the values of the constants is a completely different question. For *that*, you would have to also address the following questions;

What determines the values of the constants?
Are they under the control of some sort of intelligence?
Are there other 'universes' or, at least patches of this one, with different constants?
Are all of the values for the constants actually produced in the previous scenario? If not, why not?
Etc

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Granted, to say that the universe was FT for humans and not cockroaches is beyond the scope of the FT argument.


To make an analogy, your house was clearly finely tuned, for example your light bulbs are located exactly where the electricity cables are, if you move the light bulbs say 1cm to any direction, they would no longer get electricity from the cables and the bulbs would no work.

However your dog could make an argument and claim that the house was intended for him, and nor for humans..... My point is that whether if the house was intended for dogs or for humans is irrelevant, the FT of the light bulbs indicate the existence of an intelligent creator of the house, weather if he had dogs or humans in mind is irrelevant for the purpose of stablishing the existence of the designer.

The same is claimed to be true with the universe, while the FT argument does not show that the designer had humans in my mind as his main purpose, it does show that such designer probably exists

I had know idea dogs had evolved so far. What else can they do? Are they using fake ID's that show they are three, so they can buy beer?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok but why is it that the point of equilibruim of each of the constants and initial conditions happened to be the exact values that would allow for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, chemistry (and therefore life)?

Was this just a coincidence?

I am asking these questions because I want to understand your proposition, (just want to avoid answering with a strawman)

Why is it my two parents are the people they were and not two other people?

I am afraid you are too late to concern yourself with the elimination of straw men and other fallacies, but at least you real some awareness of them.

 

[leroy]

But unlike God, I do not have the ability to kill a dog, but supernaturally make all the evidence appear as if I didn't....or, not kill a dog, but supernaturally make all the evidence appear as if I did.


Given that you've not described what ID creationism's explanation for anything is, your question is impossible to answer.


Again, you admit that common ancestry and ID creationism can indeed be one and the same, thereby negating your point about one or other being superior.


Common ancestry is the only scientific explanation for NH.


Then why were you previously invoking ID as an alternative explanation for NH?

All I am saying is that common ancestry us the best explanation for NH, this would be true even if God exists....... Do you agree? Yes or No

Then why were you previously invoking ID as an alternative explanation for NH?

When did I do that?