Yes the evolution of bacteria is very good proof. Since my minor was geology I'm partial to the fossil record which shows both the number of species and the complexity of those species to increase through time. But it was not a fast process. Life remained as single celled organisms for over two billion years. Only after enough oxygen was produced by these (which can also be shown by the rock record), was multicellular life possible and life exploded in complexity.
I didn't follow the rest of this thread. What did they all do? Insist that science is proven and religion is blind? Insist they they have science on their side and any science that doesn't agree with their science is from dumb people?
Quote from stu: ...the constants are at the values they are due to the laws of physics..... ------- Exactly. The laws set in place by the creator of the universe. Oh, there is another possibility that I don't think has been discussed on ET. Some scientists have recently speculated that we and our universe are just a computer simulation running on an unimaginably powerful computer somewhere outside of our universe. (I hope it doesn't have a hard drive crash anytime soon)
I think then you have to elaborate on your objection. the beginning of his paper... explains.. .the probability density... he lays out he foundation... from pretty much the first sentence. http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/ -- I am in no way taking Dawkins out of context... Dawkins is the pied piper of atheism... First he admits that almost all scientists in the field now concur the constants are fine tuned... he cites... Martin Ress book just six numbers... which states exactly that. you can read the reviews on amazon... if you doubt what I am saying... read the amazon quote below. Dawkins then gives his 4 explanations why our universe appears so fine tuned. a. creator... dawkins dismisses. b. multivers.. c. theory of everything d. stenger... by the way in the review below you will see the same thing in the last paragraph... here is the first review form the amazon cite... for rees book. The author of this book, Sir Martin Rees, is the Royal Society Research Professor at Cambridge University and holds the title of Astronomer Royal. One must assume, then, that the arguments that he puts forward in this book represent the very best thinking of what is to me a very esoteric science. He apologies for the slow gestation of this book, written especially for the Science Masters series. But in my mind he need not apologise as has completed a formidable assignment - that of explaining in everyday terms some of the leading-edge theories in the realm of cosmology. In this book Sir Martin shows how just six numbers, imprinted in the 'big bang', determine the essential features of the physical cosmos. He also shows that cosmic evolution is highly sensitive to the values of these numbers and that if any one of them were 'untuned' there could be no stars and no life. Or at least not in the way that we know them today. So what are these six fundamental numbers? The first is a ratio of the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. It is very large, about 1036, and were it a few zeros shorter, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist and there would be no time for biological evolution. The second number is also a ratio and is the proportion of energy that is released when hydrogen fuses into helium. This number is 0.007, and if it were 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist. The third number, also a ratio, relates the actual density of matter in the universe to a 'critical' density. At first sight this number appears to be about 0.4. If this ratio were too high the universe would have collapsed long ago: if too low, galaxies or stars would not have formed. The fourth number, only recently discovered, is a cosmic 'antigravity' and appears to control the expansion of the universe even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light years. The fifth number is the ratio of the energy required to break apart a galaxy compared to its 'rest mass energy' and is about 10-5. If this ratio were smaller the universe would be inert and structureless: if much larger the universe would be so violent that no stars or sun systems could survive. The sixth number, surprisingly, is the number of spatial dimensions in our world (3). Life could not exist if this was 2 or 4. In this book Sir Martin discusses each of the above and develops reasons for the limits that he gives. He postulates that perhaps there are some connections between these numbers but states that at the moment we cannot predict any one of them from the values of the others. Perhaps a 'theory of everything' will eventually yield a formula that interrelates them. More thought provoking is Sir Martin's discussion of what or who 'tuned' these numbers. He identifies three scenarios. One is the hard-headed approach of 'we could not exist if these numbers weren't adjusted in this special way: we manifestly are here, so there's nothing to be surprised about'. Another is that the 'tuning' of these numbers is evidence of a beneficent Creator, who formed the universe with the specific intention of producing us. For those who do not accept the 'providence' or Creator arguments, and Sir Martin places himself in this category, there is another argument, though still conjectural. This is that the 'big bang' may not have been the only one. Separate universes may have cooled down differently, ending up governed by different laws and defined by different numbers. Certainly, reading this book (and its no light task in coming to grips with the scale or immensity of the numbers) has been rewarding for me and has awakened in me an interest in looking further into other discussions regarding the 'big bang', time and parallel universes. David Skea, Reviewer
Ok...let's work through this...the Penrose figure is based off the assumption that the universe is closed, and all of the constants exist uniformly throughout our universe. Fair enough. In addition to this, he is using other figures that are observed derived of this universe and only this universe. In order to have a proper probability density one must use the statistical data of a large sample set. In this case the sample set would be a large number of universes. Is this possible? Of course not. This kind of leads into Rees (and that review which more or less refutes your point)...Penrose mentions a phase space as the initial starting point, with a pin poking in a very specific location to tune entropy and the rest of the constants to a certain level. But what about other phase spaces? If the phase space is in one condition when the pin is poked through, then another when it's poked again, this will certainly lead to different constants and physical properties. These constants are obviously very important to our universe as they are because they set the foundation for cosmic evolution and life. But I should point out..."life as we know it". Rees follows the school of thought that there is a connection between these states and constants (which I'm inclined to believe) and that there are, were, and will be multiple big bangs, each with their own inter-related properties and rates of cooling. As for the Dawkins video...I still don't see the relevance. He outlines some theories which may help us understand why our universe appears fine tuned...and eventually starts discussing the multiverse theory, which is what Rees seems to follow, more or less. I see this akin to evolutionary arguments. I remember being taught the theory, there was Darwin's view and a view of another (I forget his name). The other theory was based on the assumption that life actively and consciously adapted to its environment, thus leading to evolution and speciation. The theory based of off Darwin's work suggests that evolution is a random process, where selection happens at the population level based on external stressors. The example I gave earlier about the bacteria is a good illustration of this concept.
well stated. Penrose has another video in which he discusses the two points you made. he has stated that even if you were to use the number of universes speculated as possible solutions... (which polchiski calculated as 10 to the 500 and then Susskind use that number and just guessed that each solution of string theory could acutually be a universe...) that amount of universes would not counter the fine tuning argument. I will look for the penrose video... regarding... rees and dawkins... I am not arguing one universe or many... I am simply stating that science says our one universe appears designed. I am further suggesting that if you were to consider the options... the razor would posit that a tuned universe would suggest tuner...more readily than an unseen unproven multiverse. (which does not rule out a creator anyway)