Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton

[otseng]

This thread is to debate the book Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.

The following debaters are allowed to participate:
Cathar1950
McCulloch
Confused
Furrowed Brow
otseng

Here is the agenda:
- Start off with background info of the author and book.
- Clarify any terms used.
- Cover one chapter at a time and debate the points made in that chapter. We might skip some chapters if we agree to it.
- Give closing arguments and final thoughts on the book.
- Go out for a drink.

[Furrowed Brow]

Totally agree with Confused.

However I want to make one point about Chapter 3. Denton makes play of the fitness of the visible light specrum. And the unfitness of wave lengths outside the normal visble light spectrum for vision.

However there are cases of certain animlas taken advantage of UV vision.
UV vision in Rats
UV Predation
UV and the Compound Eye
UV vision in bats
Infrared vision in Cats, Dogs and Deer
IR vision Boa Constrictor
IR vision in Piranahs and Goldfish

So things are not as black and white as Denton makes it appear. I suspect, and that many of the other fitness for life points he is making are also not quite so cut and dried, and that life is not perched on a tightrope, but rather is sitting atop a hill with slopes of vary degrees.

[Confused]

Totally agree with Confused.

However I want to make one point about Chapter 3. Denton makes play of the fitness of the visible light specrum. And the unfitness of wave lengths outside the normal visble light spectrum for vision.

However there are cases of certain animlas taken advantage of UV vision.
UV vision in Rats
UV Predation
UV and the Compound Eye
UV vision in bats
Infrared vision in Cats, Dogs and Deer
IR vision Boa Constrictor
IR vision in Piranahs and Goldfish

So things are not as black and white as Denton makes it appear. I suspect, and that many of the other fitness for life points he is making are also not quite so cut and dried, and that life is not perched on a tightrope, but rather is sitting atop a hill with slopes of vary degrees.

I agree. I just finished the last of Part I of his book and the only things he has supported is that conditions on earth were favorable for life (any form) to evolve. He never once proves that the universe was made specifically for life, only that life was able to evolve to the conditions under which it evolved. He also only varies to the anthropocentric model in few citations. Mostly, he refers to life in general. Not human life. So I will agree that he did, to a certain degree, show a biocentric model, but I will stipulate that I found nothing convincing to show that the universe was made specifically for life as opposed to life adapting and evolving to an universe already established with somewhat good conditions for life to do so. If you note, in every chapter he sets very narrow standards required for life to evolve. The problem with this is that we know that certain species have gone extinct. These species didn't just evolve over night and then become extinct the next day. These species evolved just as man did, and in one catastrophic event, they were unable to adapt and became extinct. There is no reason to believe that man is in any way any more valuable to the universe than these previous ancient animals. More so, Denton makes no credible argument to show that human life is any more valuable than any other life on this planet or to the universe as a whole.

So does every agree to move on to part II and reserve the right to refer to previous chapters in reference to a debating topic they find in part II?

[otseng]

However I want to make one point about Chapter 3. Denton makes play of the fitness of the visible light spectrum. And the unfitness of wave lengths outside the normal visble light spectrum for vision.

The point is not the visible light range per se, but of the limited range of the electromagnetic radiation.

70 percent of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of the sun is concentrated in an exceedingly narrow radiation band extending from the near ultraviolet through the visible light range into the near infrared. This minute band represents the unimaginably small fraction of approximately one part in 10E25 of the entire electromagnetic spectrum

This is not terribly interesting by itself, but what makes it remarkable is that it is the same range that is fit for life.

Electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays through X rays to ultraviolet rays is all harmful to life. Similarly, radiation in the far infrared and microwave regions is also damaging to life. Just about the only region of the electromagnetic spectrum which is harmless to life apart form the visible and the near infrared is the region of very long wavelength radiation - the radio waves. So the sun not only puts out all its radiant energy in the tiny band of utility to life but virturally none in those regions of the spectrum which are harmful to life.

Add to this the interesting fact that atmospheric gases absorb EMR outside of this range.

Even the atmospheric gases themselves absorb EMR very strongly in those regions of the specturm immediately on either side of the visible and near infrared.

We should indeed be awed and staggered by this series of coincidences that the EMR of the sun should be restricted to a tiny region of the total EMS, equivalent to one specific playing card in a deck of 10E25 cards stretching across the universe; that the very same infinitely minute region should be precisely that required for life; that the atmospheric gases should be opaque to all regions of the spectrum except this same tiny region; that water should likewise by opaque to all regions of the spectrum save this same infinitesimally tiny region, etc.

[otseng]

So does every agree to move on to part II and reserve the right to refer to previous chapters in reference to a debating topic they find in part II?

I'd still like to proceed one or two chapters at a time and try to go through the book in sequence.

[otseng]

So I will agree that he did, to a certain degree, show a biocentric model, but I will stipulate that I found nothing convincing to show that the universe was made specifically for life as opposed to life adapting and evolving to an universe already established with somewhat good conditions for life to do so.

In several of his arguments, life adaptation has no relevance.

For example, in chapter 2 he talks about the properties of water. It is the physical properties of water itself that makes it fit for life. Without those properties, life would not be possible.

What is so very remarkable about the various physical properties of water cited above is not that each is so fit in itself, but the astonishing way in which, in many instances, several independent properties are adapted to serve cooperatively the same biological end.

It's generally recognized that water is required for life, of any sort.

For these and other reasons, liquid water is still the Holy Grail for planetary scientists, who, based on what they know today, consider it likely that liquid water is essential to all life, terrestrial and extra-. Says Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, "Given that life on Earth is so dependent on water, and given that water is so prevalent in the universe, we don't feel that we're going out on a limb to say that life would require liquid water."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mars/essential.html

Without the long chain of vital coincidences in the physical and chemical properties of water, carbon-based life could not exist in any form remotely comparable with that which exists on earth.

[Confused]

So I will agree that he did, to a certain degree, show a biocentric model, but I will stipulate that I found nothing convincing to show that the universe was made specifically for life as opposed to life adapting and evolving to an universe already established with somewhat good conditions for life to do so.

In several of his arguments, life adaptation has no relevance.

For example, in chapter 2 he talks about the properties of water. It is the physical properties of water itself that makes it fit for life. Without those properties, life would not be possible.

What is so very remarkable about the various physical properties of water cited above is not that each is so fit in itself, but the astonishing way in which, in many instances, several independent properties are adapted to serve cooperatively the same biological end.

It's generally recognized that water is required for life, of any sort.

For these and other reasons, liquid water is still the Holy Grail for planetary scientists, who, based on what they know today, consider it likely that liquid water is essential to all life, terrestrial and extra-. Says Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, "Given that life on Earth is so dependent on water, and given that water is so prevalent in the universe, we don't feel that we're going out on a limb to say that life would require liquid water."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mars/essential.html

Without the long chain of vital coincidences in the physical and chemical properties of water, carbon-based life could not exist in any form remotely comparable with that which exists on earth.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am only stating the obvious. A biocentric model, not an anthropocentric model. Life in general means nothing to theists unless their is proof that the universe was created specifically for man, not life in general. Thus far, he has not done this. He has shown many of the properties of water, and I concede that necessity for carbon based life. But not specific to human life over any other carbon based life. It is science 101.

[Confused]

However I want to make one point about Chapter 3. Denton makes play of the fitness of the visible light spectrum. And the unfitness of wave lengths outside the normal visble light spectrum for vision.

The point is not the visible light range per se, but of the limited range of the electromagnetic radiation.

70 percent of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of the sun is concentrated in an exceedingly narrow radiation band extending from the near ultraviolet through the visible light range into the near infrared. This minute band represents the unimaginably small fraction of approximately one part in 10E25 of the entire electromagnetic spectrum

This is not terribly interesting by itself, but what makes it remarkable is that it is the same range that is fit for life.

Electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays through X rays to ultraviolet rays is all harmful to life. Similarly, radiation in the far infrared and microwave regions is also damaging to life. Just about the only region of the electromagnetic spectrum which is harmless to life apart form the visible and the near infrared is the region of very long wavelength radiation - the radio waves. So the sun not only puts out all its radiant energy in the tiny band of utility to life but virturally none in those regions of the spectrum which are harmful to life.

Add to this the interesting fact that atmospheric gases absorb EMR outside of this range.

Even the atmospheric gases themselves absorb EMR very strongly in those regions of the specturm immediately on either side of the visible and near infrared.

We should indeed be awed and staggered by this series of coincidences that the EMR of the sun should be restricted to a tiny region of the total EMS, equivalent to one specific playing card in a deck of 10E25 cards stretching across the universe; that the very same infinitely minute region should be precisely that required for life; that the atmospheric gases should be opaque to all regions of the spectrum except this same tiny region; that water should likewise by opaque to all regions of the spectrum save this same infinitesimally tiny region, etc.

All this goes to prove that it is great for life. Not that it was created for life, but that life was able to form and evolve because of its ability to adapt. But still, it is a biocentric view. If anything it shows those species able to see more of the spectrum than us are superior in this instance. That hardly supports the anthropocentric view that Denton seems to want to establish yet finds very hesitant to use over life in general. In regards to light etc. just a general comment, I wouldn't classify it as perfect for life considering the cases of skin cancer from UV radiation, the fact that because water absorbs UV radiation so well, any human in water has a higher incidence of sunburns which are linked to increased incidences of skin cancer, and then there is the fact that there are species that have adapted to a no light environment and rely on sound waves as opposed to light therby negating the necessity of light for sight. Denton so loves to end his chapters in how the evidence shows mulitple ways in which all his science 101 information shows that it makes the universe and the earth itself so "supremely" fit for life. But I have yet to see one instance in which it makes it fit for the supremacy of human life.

[Cathar1950]

I am always reading where they find life in places they would never expect it.
They pop up in extreme conditions.
Ticks that go 18 years with out a meal.
Just because we humans a sissy creatures doesn’t make the universe all that specially made for us. I was watching a program on NGC where 70,000 ago we almost became extinct. It could happen any day. Then maybe it will be best suited for bugs. Maybe the universe is best suited for bacteria?

[Furrowed Brow]

Electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays through X rays to ultraviolet rays is all harmful to life. Similarly, radiation in the far infrared and microwave regions is also damaging to life. Just about the only region of the electromagnetic spectrum which is harmless to life apart form the visible and the near infrared is the region of very long wavelength radiation - the radio waves. So the sun not only puts out all its radiant energy in the tiny band of utility to life but virturally none in those regions of the spectrum which are harmful to life.

This is just a skewed way of looking at the issue.

This is why it is skewed 1 - On many issues I guess UV and Infra Red radiation can be said to be harmful to life. But then some organism seem to take advantage of UV and IR light. I think it is the case of what does not kill me, if I can take advantage of it, will make me stronger than the rest. And though he is eager to emphasize their harmfulness, he remains quiet about Bats UV vision and Boas IR vision. Denton's whole way of putting things relies on very black or white or absolute categories. As we thrash things out I think it will become apparent that the conditions necessary for life are not as fined tuned as he would have us believe.

This is why is is skewed 2 - some conditions in every respect imaginable will be harmful to life, say inside a black hole. Where conditions are not completely fatal, then if and when complex life finds purchase, it will thrive in areas that are not too warm, not too cold etc. Goldilock conditions. And really that is what Denton's argument boils down to. He is saying that if you look at a wide range of phenomena in each there are finely tuned Goldlilock conditions. But take the narrow range or radiation that seems to be good for life on Earth. It ain't so good for life on Mercury or Pluto. So there is more to the whole picture - really it is certain conditions combined with certain locations that are Goldilock.

Now if someone could successfully show that gravity had a propensity for putting planets slap bang in the Goldilock zone of every star, then that would I think be gobsmackingly amazing. And just the kind of killer point Denton would revel in.

However his argument only looks at conditions fit for life. As such he never gets beyond a weak anthropic principle (at least as far as I have read ch 7).

This last point reveals a possible tension. A christian theist, who believes God made man unique in the universe, is going to have difficulties with the implications of this thesis, if ever such a strong point in favour of Nature's Destiny were to emerge. Because the thrust of Nature's destiny, if nature really does have a destiny would then to be the creation of complex life at all possible opportunities, and making those opportunities universally abundant.

But Denton is a million miles away from being able to make such a claim. As I say he is dressing up a weak anthropic principle, and with sly turns of phrases is dressing it up as more than what it really is.

This is why it is skewed 3 - I have already made the point that life really sits atop a hill, and is not balanced on a tightrope. Human life and complex life, however is balance more finely than microbiotic life. In fact complex life could be wiped out by a meteor whilst microbiotic life continues. In this sense microbes are the lowest common denominator of life. So really it would be far more accurate and pertinent to write a book arguing Nature's Destiny is microbiotic life.

[Confused]

I am always reading where they find life in places they would never expect it.
They pop up in extreme conditions.
Ticks that go 18 years with out a meal.
Just because we humans a sissy creatures doesn’t make the universe all that specially made for us. I was watching a program on NGC where 70,000 ago we almost became extinct. It could happen any day. Then maybe it will be best suited for bugs. Maybe the universe is best suited for bacteria?

Nah, viruses will kill us off long before bacteria does.