Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

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


When did I do that?

Common ancestry doesn't falsify the existence of God.

Nested hierarchy supports common ancestry and not a designer, unless you are going to posit a designer bent on deceit.

 

[leroy]

Common ancestry doesn't falsify the existence of God.

Nested hierarchy supports common ancestry and not a designer, unless you are going to posit a designer bent on deceit.

Those are very interesting points, but you didn't answer the question

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

 

[leroy]

You forgot to add a citation for your claim.

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature

 

[leroy]

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

Sure, the claim is that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of atoms, stars, molecules etc. And that life requires the existence of that stuff in order to excist

 

[leroy]

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.

Well of all the claims that I have made, which of them would you say are wrong, so that I can justify them

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, the claim is that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of atoms, stars, molecules etc. And that life requires the existence of that stuff in order to excist

OK, make your argument that the universe is FT. Then make the additional argument that this improves the odds of an intelligent designer.an intelligent designer is an explanation for the FT we see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well of all the claims that I have made, which of them would you say are wrong, so that I can justify them

The entirety of what you call "the fine tuning argument"

It's as fallacious as it gets.
Every time I've been presented with such claims, all I saw were arguments from ignorance, teleological fallacies, assumed conclusions, arguments from incredulity, ....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals | Nature

Please quote where it says that 200 identical genes evolved independently from one another with the exact same sequence of mutations.

 

[leroy]

The entirety of what you call "the fine tuning argument"

It's as fallacious as it gets.
Every time I've been presented with such claims, all I saw were arguments from ignorance, teleological fallacies, assumed conclusions, arguments from incredulity, ....

Care to be specific? Of all the statements that I made which ones in particular do would you say are wrong so that I can justify them.

 

[leroy]

Please quote where it says that 200 identical genes evolved independently from one another with the exact same sequence of mutations.

That is a strawman, I never said that 200 genes evolved independently in bats and dolphins
And I already corrected that straw man earlier ¿why can’t you learn from your previous mistakes?


...........................
This is and has always been my claim.

leroy said: ↑

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 200 times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Care to be specific? Of all the statements that I made which ones in particular do would you say are wrong so that I can justify them.

Like this one in post 2060:

The FT argument simply proposes that the finely tuned pattern that we observe in the constants of nature is better explained by design than by natural mechanisms....

This is a bare assertion in dire need of explanation and rational justification.

 

[leroy]

Polymath257 and Wandering Monk made a similar claim so I´ll answer to both :

No, it is because those values maximize overall complexity. That, in particular, allows the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies, complex chemicals, etc.

How about this: BECAUSE the constants and laws of physics are such, these thing could arise.

But the question is why……… why are the values of the constants and initial condictions such that they would allow for life? Why are these values “changing” to optimize complexity, why arent the changeing to optimice "simplicity"?

1 Is it due to a random or stochastic event? Maybe it simply happened to be that way (chance)

2 Is it because there are deeper natural laws that explain these values, where these deeper laws allow for a wider range of life permitting values?.......... (for example inflation is a candidate that would make a flat universe more probable, so inflation does solve 1 FT problem, would you say that there are other deeper “laws” or “mechanisms” that would solve other FT problems, just like inflation probably solves the flatness problem?)

3 Is it because an intelligent designer made those values as such, because he wanted a universe that could support life.

Which of these 3 alternatives do you think is the best?

 

[leroy]

Like this one in post 2060:

The FT argument simply proposes that the finely tuned pattern that we observe in the constants of nature is better explained by design than by natural mechanisms....

This is a bare assertion in dire need of explanation and rational justification.

Well that is what the FT argument proposes isent it? Should I justify that assertion? That is stupid, since I am the one proposing the argument, I am the one who decide what is it what the argument proposes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a strawman, I never said that 200 genes evolved independently in bats and dolphins
And I already corrected that straw man earlier ¿why can’t you learn from your previous mistakes?

You say you corrected it, but your so-called correction just repeated it:


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.

So yes, you did claim that these genes took the exact same evolutionary pathways.
Which is not at all what is said in the article you linked.

Convergent evolution <> identical evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that is what the FT argument proposes isent it?

It's just a bare assertion.

Should I justify that assertion?

Yes.

That is stupid, since I am the one proposing the argument,

And you feel like it's not your job to justify it?

I am the one who decide what is it what the argument proposes

And you should try to support it, unless you're happy with it just being a bare assertion. But then, don't expect anyone to pay any attention to it either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the question is why……… why are the values of the constants and initial condictions such that they would allow for life? Why are these values “changing” to optimize complexity, why arent the changeing to optimice "simplicity"?

This quesiton has confirmation bias and hindsight fallacy written all over it.
You are asking this question with some kind of "purpose" in mind. The addition of the words "such that they would allow for life", shows that you put additional special value on them for that reason.

This is like being dealt a random hand of cars and ending up with a royal flush and then asking "why were the values of the cards such that they would allow for a royal flush".

Surely you can see how that would be an invalid question to ask.
Now, if you would actually have valid reasons and evidence to think that the deck had been tampered with, and that the hand wasn't actually random, then you could ask that question. But at that point, you're not just assuming "purpose".

So the real questions is: why do you ask that question? What makes you think that this "why" question, actually has an answer?

Sure, there is an explanation for why the constants have the value that they have. But that's a HOW question. Not a WHY question.

1 Is it due to a random or stochastic event? Maybe it simply happened to be that way (chance)

We don't know yet.
I guess there are many potential reasons.
Perhaps they only CAN have those values.
Perhaps there's an infinite amount of universe and we just live in the one in which we can live.
Perhaps there are only a couple, or even just one, universe and we lucked out.

I see no reason at this point to make any kind of "cosmic purpose" assumptions.
I see no reason to think that "life" is the point of the universe any more then black holes or expanding space is.

2 Is it because there are deeper natural laws that explain these values, where these deeper laws allow for a wider range of life permitting values?

perhaps.

.......... (for example inflation is a candidate that would make a flat universe more probable, so inflation does solve 1 FT problem, would you say that there are other deeper “laws” or “mechanisms” that would solve other FT problems, just like inflation probably solves the flatness problem?)

Perhaps.

3 Is it because an intelligent designer made those values as such, because he wanted a universe that could support life.

What "intelligent designer"? What makes you propose this, other then you already believing in one religiously?

Which of these 3 alternatives do you think is the best?

The one that requires the least assumptions of unsupported entities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Those are very interesting points, but you didn't answer the question

​

I disagree, but not answering would be in keeping with the bar you set.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure, the claim is that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of atoms, stars, molecules etc. And that life requires the existence of that stuff in order to excist

Now you have two assertions to support. Go.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well of all the claims that I have made, which of them would you say are wrong, so that I can justify them

Stop the games. Support your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Care to be specific? Of all the statements that I made which ones in particular do would you say are wrong so that I can justify them.

Stop the games. Support your claims.