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)

[Bro Dave]

For me, the most overlooked problem with mindless evolution, is the timing. Not only did a single lucky chain of events happen to produce some single evolving thing, but all the other pieces required managed to keep up! Take the knee as a simple example. There is a ligament that goes across the knee, without which, the knee simply is useless. So, how lucky do you have to be, to have a functional knee joint perfectly evolve, and at the same time, have the required ligament there to make it work? Multiply that by all the rest of the pieces that managed to come together at the exact right moment in exactly the right place, and all of it correctly wired to a brain capable of the needed controls. This is for me way beyond any possibility of being a mindless event(s).

Bro Dave

[steen]

For me, the most overlooked problem with mindless evolution, is the timing. Not only did a single lucky chain of events happen to produce some single evolving thing, but all the other pieces required managed to keep up! Take the knee as a simple example. There is a ligament that goes across the knee, without which, the knee simply is useless. So, how lucky do you have to be, to have a functional knee joint perfectly evolve, and at the same time, have the required ligament there to make it work? Multiply that by all the rest of the pieces that managed to come together at the exact right moment in exactly the right place, and all of it correctly wired to a brain capable of the needed controls. This is for me way beyond any possibility of being a mindless event(s).

Huh? Are you saying that the knee-joint as we know it today was to have evolved suddenly fully-formed? There is nothing at all in Evolution predicting or stating this. In fact, that would be an argument against evolution, so it is not clear what you are trying to claim here?

[Curious]

For me, the most overlooked problem with mindless evolution, is the timing. Not only did a single lucky chain of events happen to produce some single evolving thing, but all the other pieces required managed to keep up! ...

Bro Dave

The theory of evolution doesn't state that a single lucky chain occurred but that out of trillions of non-sustainable formations, certain evolvable structures developed.

[QED]

At the risk of straying from the topic, Dave's problem with evolution is something we ought to be able to fix. I say this because in Dave's case I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that the planet is only 6000 years old. This peculiar belief usually goes hand in hand with incredulity about evolution and is plainly a huge obstacle in understanding how evolution could be capable of producing complex structures.

The key then is the billions of years that evolution has at its disposal. An awful lot can happen in such extended time-frames. Another key point is that Dave is thinking about a very recent knee. I'm sure he's not thinking about the very first knee that ever graced the planet; which was probably barely recognizable as a knee, and was probably as big as a gnats. I think the answer is also the solution to the Chicken and egg problem. The first instances of these structures were not at all recognizable as Chickens or Chicken eggs: the first egg being the amniotic egg laid some 200 million years ago. It is only through the long hard slog of evolutionary development that these simple precursors take on the familiar complex forms we see today.

[Bro Dave]

Yes QED, you are correct at least in part. Actually, I was thinking about early knees, and early everything else as well. It all functioned. There is no evidence that I am aware of, that shows hap-hazard failures, only parallel successes. What “failed”, were not really failures. They were necessary stepping stones that lead in a direction, designed to product refined, intelligent animals. Because evolution is a tool, and not a Hollywood scripted movie, the mechanism of evolution is allowed to “unfold”, in what sometimes seem a random way. But it is monitored by them and guided, so the ultimate goal is never in question.

If you will indulge me, I’d like to share my understanding of how the process proceeds;
There are beings, which the Urantia Book refers to as Life Carriers. Their job is to take the planets that appear promising, and evolve life on them. They have a set of standard evolutionary plans that work on various types of worlds,(including some with no atmosphere). Every 10th planet is treated differently, and referred to as a “decimal planet”. Earth is one such. These planets do not strictly follow standard formats, but are uniquely evolved, using various “visionary” techniques. Eventually, the process produces animals capable of making the shift to being what we refer to as human. Normally at that point, there is a DNA intervention which uplifts the planetary stock. This is where we got messed up, and is why we suffer from certain diseases etc.(but that is a long topic for another day…)

Bro Dave

[QED]

It all functioned. There is no evidence that I am aware of, that shows hap-hazard failures...

Of course it looks as if there were no failures. Every single living thing on the planet today has an unbroken lineage going all the way back to the very first microbe. But for every one of these success stories there will have been countless failures that represent genetic dead-ends. In the lab for example a single gene (named the fruitless gene) has been identified as controlling the mating behaviour offruit flies. How long do you think a natural mutation of this gene would persist in the wild? Would we ever get to pull such an afflicted individual out of amber and see the defective gene?

If you will indulge me, I’d like to share my understanding of how the process proceeds;

If you will forgive me, at best all revealed religion appears to me to be a metaphor for the real story of the unfolding universe. In most cases it seems to deliver a naive view of the world based on the pre-scientific assumption that it takes intelligent, proactive agencies (similar to man) to make and do things. Your religion is much more recent but continues in the same tradition...

There are beings, which the Urantia Book refers to as Life Carriers. Their job is to take the planets that appear promising, and evolve life on them.

...Which raises the question: what is a promising planet? Of course it is one that is balanced between being far enough from thermal equilibrium to support chemical cycles without being too chaotic as to disrupt any interesting chemistry. It also requires a sufficient variety of molecular compounds to provide the building blocks of organic life.

So in the end the "Life Carriers" are being drafted in to explain how these compounds become animated into life. This is put forward in the exact same tradition as all other beings (fairies, pixies, etc.) invented by folklore to explain other apparently mysterious goings-on. I think it is important to contemplate the human motive here -- which is one of incredulity. It might not seem possible to some people that molecular compounds could jiggle around enough to form self-replicating structures over a billion or so years, but the fact is that once they did, there would be no going back. Once again the simple property of persistence is what it's all about. It's so simple it's outright tautology: that which is capable of persisting will stick around for us to see. All the rest will be forgotten.

They have a set of standard evolutionary plans that work on various types of worlds,(including some with no atmosphere). Every 10th planet is treated differently, and referred to as a “decimal planet”. Earth is one such. These planets do not strictly follow standard formats, but are uniquely evolved, using various “visionary” techniques. Eventually, the process produces animals capable of making the shift to being what we refer to as human. Normally at that point, there is a DNA intervention which uplifts the planetary stock. This is where we got messed up, and is why we suffer from certain diseases etc.(but that is a long topic for another day…)

I have to say that that looks to me like a fantastic rationalization born out of a need to maintain a couple of assumptions. First it draws on the traditional religious notion that man is special from all the other animals. Never mind that he shares 98% of the genetic material of his nearest cousin or even 40% of his cousin's favourite fruit. OK, I know, that 2% embodies the difference between Mozart's Requiem Mass and a raspberry sound but I don't see anything absolute about our supposed "progress". On balance I feel our deeds ultimately cancel themselves out to the point where we too are sat scratching ourselves in a tree somewhere.

As for focusing on disease this, presumably, is some contemplation of the fact that had a divine hand plucked us from the hairy rabble we would have also been due for an upgrade away from the rough-and-ready approach to design that is the best that evolution can do? So, given that we are still being routinely killed by a useless organ such as the appendix means that we must have messed up the upgrade somehow. Once again the Christian tradition of self-blame rears it's gloomy head for no reason other than to maintain the rationalization that we are something special in the animal kingdom.

Sometimes it pays to be humble and I personally think that this ought to be our default position when engaging in an honest appraisal of our place in the world. In the end I think we can all see that our bodies are 100% "stock" animal. We have only one distinctive feature and it is restricted to a cryptic difference in the architecture of our brains. And as we have already learnt from Neanderthals it isn't even unique.

[Curious]

Sometimes it pays to be humble and I personally think that this ought to be our default position when engaging in an honest appraisal of our place in the world. In the end I think we can all see that our bodies are 100% "stock" animal. We have only one distinctive feature and it is restricted to a cryptic difference in the architecture of our brains. And as we have already learnt from Neanderthals it isn't even unique.

While in the main I tend to agree with you, I really do disagree with your assertation that we have learned from the brains of Neanderthals that our particular "cryptic" differences within the brain are not unique. Scientific study concerning epiphanyic episodes can only be studied using live brains and is only obvious when the total context of brain activity is taken into account. Neanderthal skulls give little more than volumetric data which is completely useless in respect to such function.
I have the greatest respect for your input but in this instance I believe you are in error.

[steen]

There are beings, which the Urantia Book refers to as Life Carriers. Their job is to take the planets that appear promising, and evolve life on them. They have a set of standard evolutionary plans that work on various types of worlds,(including some with no atmosphere). Every 10th planet is treated differently, and referred to as a “decimal planet”. Earth is one such.

Pure speculation, absolutely NO evidence.

[bernee51]

There are beings, which the Urantia Book refers to as Life Carriers. Their job is to take the planets that appear promising, and evolve life on them. They have a set of standard evolutionary plans that work on various types of worlds,(including some with no atmosphere). Every 10th planet is treated differently, and referred to as a “decimal planet”. Earth is one such.

Pure speculation, absolutely NO evidence.

Speculation? You are being too kind Steen.

This aspect of UB is science fiction at best.

[QED]

Sometimes it pays to be humble and I personally think that this ought to be our default position when engaging in an honest appraisal of our place in the world. In the end I think we can all see that our bodies are 100% "stock" animal. We have only one distinctive feature and it is restricted to a cryptic difference in the architecture of our brains. And as we have already learnt from Neanderthals it isn't even unique.

While in the main I tend to agree with you, I really do disagree with your assertation that we have learned from the brains of Neanderthals that our particular "cryptic" differences within the brain are not unique. Scientific study concerning epiphanyic episodes can only be studied using live brains and is only obvious when the total context of brain activity is taken into account. Neanderthal skulls give little more than volumetric data which is completely useless in respect to such function.
I have the greatest respect for your input but in this instance I believe you are in error.

Good gracious! I wouldn't dream of going by physiological evidence alone to make such a statement. My conclusion is based on the uncontroversial evidence of social behaviours among Neanderthals such as burial ceremony, support for the sick and tool-making skills -- to name but a few. In fact so significant are these behaviours in what is widely held to be a different species that I notice biblical fundamentalists going to great lengths to portray Neanderthals into early humans. I've seen this done either by claims that this is how people looked when, like Methuselah, they were enjoying 800 year life-spans or that the deviations in their morphology were due to diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget's disease, and/or congenital syphilis. Clearly then the significance of another creature displaying human-like behaviours is not lost on the biblical literalist.