Universal Evolution

[QED]

Of all the facts known to science, one of the most startling has to be the apparently arbitrary but highly critical values possessed by the physical constants.

For example if the gravitational constant was too low stars would not shine. If higher then stars would burn up too fast using up all their fuel before life had a chance to evolve on planets in orbit around them. Likewise, if the electromagnetic coupling constant had been lower, electrons would not stay in orbit around atomic nuclei. If higher, electrons would not bond with other atoms. Also, if the strong force coupling constant holding particles together in the atomic nucleus were weaker, then multi-proton particles would not be viable and the only element in the Universe would be Hydrogen. If stronger the only element in the universe might be Iron. Complex molecules are thus only possible in a narrow range of conditions.

This gives rise to the notion of a high degree of "fine tuning" required in order to bring about a universe suitable for life. The properties of the universe that we currently enjoy emerge directly from these apparently "carefully chosen" values and even the tiniest changes would preclude life from ever appearing. Some people look upon all this as a clear indication of there having been some supreme designer who sensitively adjusted a set of cosmic dials at the inception of the universe in order that it would be long lived and bountiful. Sadly not much can be said or done to test this hypothesis, and as such it remains a non-scientific explanation.

However there are other theories as to why we might find ourselves in such an apparently carefully designed universe. And thankfully some of these ideas come with their own methods of verification which means that they do not have to remain purely speculative. This is a vital distinction because some people seem to be under the impression that there are limits to knowledge when it comes to matters relating to universal origins and this is not necessarily the case.

For example, in one idea developed by Professor Lee Smolin, natural selection becomes responsible for all the apparent Intelligent Design of our universe in the same way that natural selection explains the apparent design of living things. Essentially what he is saying is that there exist many universes, just as there exist many animals and that universes, like animals, have a system of reproduction with some universes being more efficient than others at creating progeny. At the heart of his theory are black holes which are produced by certain types of dying stars.

Along with Alan Guth, Smolin suggests that when viewed from the other side of their event horizons black holes look like new inflating universes. If the laws of nature in each new universe relate to those of the parent natural selection will step in to "fine tune" the physical constants over many generations such that universes large enough and complex enough to form stars of the right composition will dominate over those with less favourable tuning for black hole production.

As a consequence any universe that we happen to find ourselves in would tend towards being one in which the physical constants were tuned towards values resulting in something approaching a maximum for black hole production. This is where the potential for validation comes in: If the theory is to remain standing then changes in the physical constants ought to result in a reduction of black hole production. If changes were available which increased production then we would have to ask why natural selection had not gone down this route already. So far Smolin's theory has withstood this test to an impressive degree. Theoretical tweaking of the constants both above and below the known values do indeed reduce the number of black holes that would result.

Does this not demonstrate then that science can look beyond what might seem like brick-walls and, while not delivering us with certainties, can deliver us with likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubts?

(I've started this new debate topic in order to draw off-topic discussion along these lines away from the Hovind/Callahan Debate)

[steen]

As for "crying I AM Truth", I've made no such claim. My claim is that science is no where near explaining our universe, even at the "simplist" levels. All our "facts" are relative. For anyone to dismiss even the possiblity that there is a Master Architech responsible for design and unfoldment of that Universe, seems to step beyond what is reasonable. And to dismiss it because we have sufficient explainations, is truly laughable.

Bro Dave

Nothing is dismissed. But it can't be proven and has no evidence. So it is not science. It doesn't apply to the Scientific Method.

[QED]

But Dave, the guidance mechanism is oh-so-simple... from the very beginning it's just survival. Survival as I keep pointing out is another word for persistence. I think people get dazzled by the all the complexity issues and lose sight of the primitives.

Okay, please explain how to code the "simple" rule of survival...

Your request for an explanation of how to code for "simple" survival suggests to me that you've read what I said, mentally jumped through a billion years of evolution, seen some multicellular life wriggling around in the slime, and then thrown down your gauntlet.

This is the very reason why I deliberately described how long chains would emerge out of a skip full of 'S' hooks - just to show how this thing goes from first principles. In this example survival is encoded in the ability to link together. The structure persists because of it's geometry. Sure it's not exactly the same sort of survival that evolves by natural selection -- but the fundamental logic that produces the structure shares the same level of simplicity. It seems to me that you've never thought about evolution by natural selection at such a low level. If you had I don't think you'd be challenging me to codify "survival".

To illustrate how primitive this sort of thing can be imagine having a huge skip full of 'S' shaped hooks. Start pulling one through the heap and it will pick up another, and another and so on until you get a long chain. It's difficult to put into words what's happening here: Essentially logic is at work at a mechanical level and the result is a persistent structure. While it in no way describes how evolution works I think it can serve to demonstrate the inevitable logic that evolution has at its foundation.

QED, your "S-hook example" reminded me of the examples in my math textbooks; Close to on connection with the real problems. Chemicals are supposedly "driven" by a desire to survive??? Interesting.

All you need to understand are The basics of Chemistry in order to see where their desire to survive comes from. I'm sure you're doing that fast forward thing in your mind again and not giving it a chance to see how, just as chains get pulled out of skips full of 'S' hooks, molecules too become persistent structures for analogous reasons. Yes I know I'm jumping about at many different levels to get my point across, but you must already know the way viruses lock on to different protein receptors.

This is the logic of nature working at the atomic scale -- given the properties of atoms the pathogenic virus is just as inevitable as its computer resident cousins. While you could fall back on pointing to the wisdom of the creator of atoms and their covalent bonds, the parallels we find in computing hint to me that the principles are independent of the material medium and have a universal application. That is to say that the underlying logic is the thing that drives life.

What I don't understand, is all the convolutions and gymnastics, just to avoid even the consideration that there is intelligence guiding the Universe.

Skips full of 'S' hooks ~ long chains ~ molecules ~ the trivial logic that what can persist will persist. Please tell me where you see mental gymnastics in any of this. To me you seem to be refusing to consider how the basics of self organization would present themselves to people like me who take a "bottom-up" view of things.

I know scientifically that does not satisfy you, but you are still free to understand the clever mechanism the Creator put into the wonderful "machine" of evolution. Is that such a painful possibility that it must never be considered?

The only "input" that seems left for the creator is in whatever it is that makes one 'S' shaped hook attach to another. From there on it all looks very inevitable to me.

[Bro Dave]

Lets deal with specifics. The claim has been made that what happens in evolution is very "simple". This is both true and false. It is simple to the degree that the mechanism for control, i.e. DNA, is based on 4 chemicals. But what is accomplished with those chemical is astounding! Now, if anyone will explain the EXACT "simple" coding used by those initial chemicals that made them "want" to survive I am all ears!

Does "want" exist for chemicals? Does a chemical know what survival is? It is fun to anthropomorphize, but it tends to lead one astray. Certainly, DNA contains lots of information, and there is a pretty darned complicated bunch of chemistry by which DNA is read and the resulting chemicals participate in various reactions. But, would it be a surprise if there were a bit of complicated stuff going on after several billion years? Remember, the stuff replicates. Any changes that result in better replication out-compete the fore-runners. Complexity happens.

As for "crying I AM Truth", I've made no such claim. My claim is that science is no where near explaining our universe, even at the "simplist" levels. All our "facts" are relative. For anyone to dismiss even the possiblity that there is a Master Architech responsible for design and unfoldment of that Universe, seems to step beyond what is reasonable. And to dismiss it because we have sufficient explainations, is truly laughable.

Indeed, you have not cried "I Am Truth." The books do.

And what “books” are your referring to? The UB does not make the explicit claim that what it says is true, in fact, it even says some things had to be distorted, either for lack of language with which to communicate concepts, or not being allowed to share unearned knowledge.

It seems to me, that to rely on some book that somebody wrote, and to conclude that because that book professes to be an accurate history of the universe in greater or lesser detail, is as laughable as your suggestion that one should reserve judgement about a Master Architect. ...by which I mean that we can sling opinions at one another forever without significant progress. To make progress, we need more than opinion.

I understand, and even agree to some degree. The UB stands or falls for each individual on its entire content. Note the word “entire”. Anyone can grab any book and take something out of context, and ridicule it. The concepts within the UB are pretty sophisticated, and acquiring the context necessary fully to understand what is said, takes effort, which most are unwilling to invest.

Please, don't mistake what I said earlier. I didn't "dismiss even the possibility that there is a Master Architect." Rather, I said the data do not compel us to include one in the explanation. These are quite different things. I merely ask what the evidence is, then attempt to fit the bits of evidence together. If there is Master Architect, he has hidden his hand, and left no trace beyond the natural laws that he set in motion. If there is NO Master Architect, and the natural laws are merely natural laws, then we achieve the same result.

Of course! In fact, I started a thread on “Why is God Hidden?”. And to summarize, it is my contention He is “hidden” only to those who do not see to find Him. Now, before you start screaming “how convenient”, think about the consequences of God not being “hidden”. Humans are lazy. If we had direct access to infinite wisdom and perfect answers, how much would we grow or learn? We wouldn’t? And, since the point of God creating a Universe, is to share in our growth, our full participation is required.

I also ask--quite seriously--how anyone is supposed to tell which Master Architect is the right one.

Actually, there is only one Master Architect assigned to this Universe, and I did mislead by inferring it was God, as First Source and Center. However, as mentioned, unless you understand the overall content of the UB, it is nearly impossible to excerpt from it. I think you were referring to mankind’s many belief systems, and the wide, wild array of deities he has created. All our representations of INFINITY, fall woefully short, and none can begin describing what we so cavalierly refer to as God.

As I said, there are many books and many oral traditions that promise that their particular Master Architect is the One And Only, and that all others are pretenders. I do not refer only to the Truthbook, as some call it, but to all of the others as well.

I to cringe at the use of the TruthBook name, but it was chosen by a website. It is not the common name for the Urantia Book.

Each claims to know the answer. How can anyone distinguish among them? Not having been raised in the tradition of any of them, and not having had any of them convince me that one is preferable to another, I give them equal weight, and equal opportunity for me to reserve judgement as to whether any may be valid. I look at what is, and ask only that those things that exist provide clues as to their workings, and clues as to their history.

That is entirely wise and reasonable. The search for God, may, or may not include the use of religion(s). Ultimately, all discover the same God living within themselves, if they search deeply enough.

So far, those clues point only to natural events, and implicate no deities. This does not rule out deities; it merely does not rule them in. Nor does it shed light on the question I ask above--how to distinguish among different peoples' favorite deity.

So, your search goes on… That is a GOOD thing! Too many stop short of discovering God within, and settle for formalized, ritualized religion instead.

It is possible to ask as well, whether the Master Designer was all that good at what he designed. This is not the thread for that discussion; there are others aimed at this topic. Suffice it to say that there's a lot of really sloppy design work in living things. So, while your basic philosophy is compelling--that the universe is pretty danged astounding and seems to cry out for a Master Plan--some of the details are so very weird that they call such a plan into question. Again, I'd prefer to reserve judgement about the designer, rather than use the evidence at hand to judge her.

Sure, again entirely a reasonable position to take. For what its worth, The UB says the Universe was not designed to be perfect at its inception. It is a giant classroom, a University, really. And, it unfoldment towards ultimate perfection, is the adventure we are invited along on, with God as our silent partner. Beats Disney!

Bro Dave

[Grumpy]

Bro Dave

Does "want" exist for chemicals? Does a chemical know what survival is? It is fun to anthropomorphize, but it tends to lead one astray.

My understanding is that "want" is the wrong concept, "tend" is more what chemicals do.

The carbon atom tends to form structures with other carbon atoms(Buckey Balls, for example). Amino acids tend to "clump" and form more complicated molecules, even simple proteins. Oxygen, Flourine and Chlorine are violently reactive and tend not to stay in atomic form for long.

In order to explain all life as we see it today, all we need is one single molecule capable of replication and mutation. Once we have that, Evolution will take over. This can be achieved in a molecule containing sequence of only 32 amino acids. How long will it take to order just 32 molecules out of the Billions of Billions of atoms available over a period of billions of years? Remember that these molecules are attracted to each other and will readily bond together given appropriate conditions.

There are many known self replicating molecules. The "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/ghadiri.htm) is a 32 amino acid long enzyme. It is a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. But most importantly it Self Replicates. The formation of this self-replicating peptide is not a huge improbability. When you consider the billions of amino acid molecules all trying to react and bond with each other over a billion years, what are the chances of just 32 of them coming together in the right order.

The bacteria Mycoplasma Genitalium is probably the simplest modern life form that we know of today. It has a genome of only 400 units. It's core DNA(the actively coding part) is only 250 units. The self replicator molecules discussed earlier have 32 Units. At what point do we say something is a life form and not just a chemical reaction that causes molecules to replicate? Would a self replicator with say 120 units be considered a life form or just a more sophisticated molecule replication process. The boundary between Life and replicating molecules is very hazy, it is not a case of saying one replicating molecule constitutes a simple life form and another is a chemical reaction. When does a puppy become an adult dog? there is no single specific moment, it is a smooth gradient.

Science is closing in on the chemistry of first life. A Creator does not seem to be necessary for life to begin, but, hey, what do I know?

Grumpy 8)

[steen]

Actually, there is only one Master Architect assigned to this Universe,

Well, you can believe this. There might be more or there might be none.

For what its worth, The UB says the Universe was not designed to be perfect at its inception. It is a giant classroom, a University, really. And, it unfoldment towards ultimate perfection, is the adventure we are invited along on, with God as our silent partner. Beats Disney!

And all in all, that is irrelevant, as the claims of the UB are no different than claims from individuals. They are all of the "just because I say so" postulation type. Science actually provides evidence.

[Bro Dave]

Grumpy, I cannot offer you absolute answers, anymore than you can offer them to me. We live in a relativistic, material world, in which the question “why?” asked enough time, always ends with the response, “I do not know”. In this case, the “tendency” for chemicals to act a certain way, is your base argument. For me, it is simply a part of the fundamental design. I do not argue that evolution takes place, only that it is a primary tool to bring the universe towards ultimate perfection. If you find that unsatisfactory, its okay with me. We each come to these discussions with different experiences, including, or excluding the extra physical. I am not trying to change your mind because it is a priority. I only offer what I have discovered and experienced, that folks are aware other possibilities exist.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

Actually, there is only one Master Architect assigned to this Universe,

Well, you can believe this. There might be more or there might be none.

For what its worth, The UB says the Universe was not designed to be perfect at its inception. It is a giant classroom, a University, really. And, it unfoldment towards ultimate perfection, is the adventure we are invited along on, with God as our silent partner. Beats Disney!

And all in all, that is irrelevant, as the claims of the UB are no different than claims from individuals. They are all of the "just because I say so" postulation type. Science actually provides evidence.

"just because I say so" is not the posture the UB offers. It does not seek to be authoritarian, only explanatory. For those whose curiosity draws them to understand the the UB in its entirity, there is an awesome overview beyond even this single universe, and continuing off into literal infinity. That may not appeal to you. Its okay.

Bro Dave

[steen]

For what its worth, The UB says the Universe was not designed to be perfect at its inception. It is a giant classroom, a University, really. And, it unfoldment towards ultimate perfection, is the adventure we are invited along on, with God as our silent partner. Beats Disney!

And all in all, that is irrelevant, as the claims of the UB are no different than claims from individuals. They are all of the "just because I say so" postulation type. Science actually provides evidence.

"just because I say so" is not the posture the UB offers. It does not seek to be authoritarian, only explanatory.

And that explanation is "because I say so."

[Curious]

Of all the facts known to science, one of the most startling has to be the apparently arbitrary but highly critical values possessed by the physical constants.

For example if the gravitational constant was too low stars would not shine. If higher then stars would burn up too fast using up all their fuel before life had a chance to evolve on planets in orbit around them. Likewise, if the electromagnetic coupling constant had been lower, electrons would not stay in orbit around atomic nuclei. If higher, electrons would not bond with other atoms. Also, if the strong force coupling constant holding particles together in the atomic nucleus were weaker, then multi-proton particles would not be viable and the only element in the Universe would be Hydrogen. If stronger the only element in the universe might be Iron. Complex molecules are thus only possible in a narrow range of conditions.

If all these constants were not so "fine tuned" I suppose we would have to wait until a universe arose with a sufficient degree of "fine tuning" to enable us to discuss the point. Concerning our ability to discern past the event horizon scientifically, I would think it highly unlikely, as our mathematics tends to be restricted to the description of this particular universe. I am pretty good at sums but would be at a loss were I to find myself in a universe where 1+1<>2. Having said that however, our observations are coloured entirely by these values and their corresponding signatures, and given that almost 100% of the universe is entirely unobserved, it might well be that these values account for only a small proportion of what is actually mathematically possible. Put it this way, no matter the value of a particular quantum, and whatever size hole it occupies, as long as both are set to some degree, you will always get some sort of consistent signature. To believe that hydrogen would be the only viable element were the values different, in my opinion, ignores the fact that such a difference would mean that the evolution of hydrogen would also be altered to a formation that would be consistent with the new values. Our observable universe is built upon these values and so of course a change in these values would not have evolved our observable universe. Since we, as yet, are unable to ascertain which particular configurations of energy are viable in respect to differing values of the particular constants, we cannot with any certainty state that other universes would be unevolvable. It is mathematically plausible, given a huge range of values, that a consistent "periodic table" could arise under almost any circumstances, taking into account that such constants are mathematically constrained to their units and vice versa.

[Grumpy]

Curious

QED wrote:
Of all the facts known to science, one of the most startling has to be the apparently arbitrary but highly critical values possessed by the physical constants.

For example if the gravitational constant was too low stars would not shine. If higher then stars would burn up too fast using up all their fuel before life had a chance to evolve on planets in orbit around them. Likewise, if the electromagnetic coupling constant had been lower, electrons would not stay in orbit around atomic nuclei. If higher, electrons would not bond with other atoms. Also, if the strong force coupling constant holding particles together in the atomic nucleus were weaker, then multi-proton particles would not be viable and the only element in the Universe would be Hydrogen. If stronger the only element in the universe might be Iron. Complex molecules are thus only possible in a narrow range of conditions.

Another way to look at it.

Physicists speculate that when the BB occured many universes were created in the event. What the critical values of all the other universes are we cannot know but because the values of our universe were such that we came about those are the only ones we know. If the values in the other universes were such that they instantly colapsed or in which stars could not form or where for whatever reason life could not exist then life would not exist in those universes. We exist in this universe because the critical values were such that our existance was possible.

In other words we were lucky that our universe had the correct values so that we could exist. What is the probability that our universe would have the right values for us to exist??? 1 to 1, 100%, unity because that is the way it happened.

Just a thought.

Grumpy 8)