Bill also looks at the Anthropic Principle.
There is an illogic in the formulation of the Anthropic Principle (AP): The proper formulation is: 1. Our existence requires a specific set of values for fundamental constants. 2. The fundamental constants have a specific set of values 3. It is possible for us to exist. The Anthropic Principle states: 1. Our existence requires a specific set of values for fundamental constants. 2. The fundamental constants have a specific set of values 3. We exist.
There is actually a "weak" and "strong" form of the AP. The weak form simply notes that if the fundamental constants of the universe were not in the set of values that allows us to exist, we would not exist. We exist, therefore, we can exist. The strong form posits some sort of mechanism that forced the fundamental constants to values that made it possible for us to exist.
I think a better formulation would be:
1. We exist
2. If the fundamental constants were outside a set of values, we would not exist
3. Each of the fundamental constants can assume a wide range of possible values independently of any of the other.
4. The probability that all of the fundamental constants would fall within the narrow range compatible with our existence is vanishingly small.
Therefore: someone or some thing gamed the system so we could exist.
Other possibilities include this being one out of countless other universes that came into being, the existence of as-yet undiscovered laws that drastically reduce the number of degrees of freedom involved, and the possibility that other values of these constants would support life other than as we know it.
However, we don't know. That's why science does research.
2 comments:
"The Anthropic Principle"...BBC Science Documentary,
Read this then click on the "Whole Story" link to possess the finest explanation of this concept I think has ever been made. The sheer magnitude and formadibility of scientific reputation and credentials of those featured in what you are about to read
makes casual or brief dismissal of their conclusions problamatic.
ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.
Many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle,"
which contends that the universe was brought into existence
intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
"If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."
"Even if you dismiss man
as a chance happening,
the fact remains that
the universe seems
unreasonably suited to
the existence of life --
almost contrived --
you might say a
'put-up job.'"
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"
According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are, in order, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."
Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."
This is just a start. For more just click here:
The Whole Story
Quantum Thought- A Palette for thinking- Norm Weatherby
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The Mathematics of Man's Evolution
Ready to have some fun?
"The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 1046 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected." [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7.]"
To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10-20 giving maximum combined probability of 10(-2000.)" [Denten, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Warwickshire, Burnett Books Limited, 1985]
"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." [R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mathematical Improbability of Life Forming by Chance
The theory of evolution states that mutation and natural selection are the engines of evolution. Many evolutionists state that non-living matter, by means of random combinations of molecules, eventually gave rise to life. However, since this problem is so insurmountable to the evolutionist, more and more of them are defining evolution to the exclusion of abiogenesis. Nevertheless, in this section, we will examine the mathematical probability of just such an occurrence. However, if you are unfamiliar with exponential notation, then you won't be as able to grasp as much in this section as someone who does. So, to make it easier for those of you who don't know it, a simple explanation and illustration should clear things up.
An example of exponential notation is 32. It is pronounced, "Three to the second." This means 3 X 3, or 9. The exponent is the 2. 102 is 10 X 10, or 100. 23 equals 2 X 2 X 2, or 8. 103 equals 10 X 10 X 10, or 1000. Notice that 102 has two zeros behind it, 103 has three zeroes behind it, and 10(4) would have four zeroes behind it, and so on. When a notation is in the negative like this, 3-3 it means 1 divided by 3 X 3 X 3, or 1/27th. Now for a quick illustration of the advantage of the use of exponential notation.
If you took a piece of paper 1/500th of an inch thick and tore it in half and put the two halves on top of one another, you would have two pieces of paper and a total of 2/500ths, or 1/250th of an inch. If you tore those in half you would have four pieces. If you tore those in half you would have eight pieces, and so on. Now, if you tore that original piece of paper, in that manner, a total of fifty times, how tall would the stack of paper be? Mathematically, the equation would be 250 pieces of paper times 1/500th of an inch. The answer would be in inches.
After reading this sentence and before reading the answer, why don't you take a look at that equation one more time, think about it a little, and then guess how tall you think the stack would be. Go ahead and guess. Did you think about it and guess? The answer is very easy. There is only one problem; it isn't in inches; it is in miles, 35,539,769 miles 4154 feet 2.3808 inches to be exact. Amazing isn't it? This shows you that the surprise in the large answer rests in the exponential notation 250, which, incidentally, is equal to 1,125,899,906,842,624. That is one quadrillion, one hundred twenty-five trillion, eight hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred six million, eight hundred forty-two thousand, six hundred twenty-four; its easier to say 250 (two to the fiftieth).
Another illustration is much simpler. The estimated number of atoms in the entire universe is approximately 1079 atoms. This is a one with 79 zeros after it. That is a lot of atoms to be so easily numbered in one simple form. But that is the advantage of exponential notation.
When the following people are quoted and they use this form of notation, you will now have a better idea of what they are saying.
Evolution teaches that in the beginning, inanimate matter, through countless combinations and a great deal of time, arrived at the present highly complex forms of life found on the earth. Let's see what the experts have to say:
...anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.
This quote was from Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist. Chance development of life on earth, in his opinion, is "nonsense of the highest order."
He also says in another work concerning biomolecules:
...one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1020 x 102000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
To say the least, the probability of biopolymers and enzymes spontaneously forming are, in Hoyle's opinion, "outrageously small."
Another writer sees "the probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 1046 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected."
Some other scientists with similar views concerning biogenesis (beginnings of life) have equally unsupportive comments: "To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10-20 giving maximum combined probability of 10-2000."
There are many such quotes available, but these few are representative of the immense mathematical improbability of life spontaneously forming anywhere on the earth. The odds are simply against it. It is impossible. Evolutionists, however, do not consider these extremely improbable odds as insurmountable. They often reply, "If the chance is so small then given enough time it will happened." Well, let's put that idea to a test.
What are the odds of an organism forming which has only 100 parts (no living cell has that few) if for 30 billion years, which is a generous estimate of the age of the universe, there were 1 billion billion billion billion combinations of its parts every second? That would be 1036 combinations per second. In other words, is that enough time? This is easy to figure out.
Life is composed of DNA or "parts." The more parts an organism has, the more complicated it is. The simplest form of life is the virus. It has thousands of parts. For the sake of simplicity, let's invent a virus with only 100 parts. The odds of 100 parts coming together in the right order are 100! 100! means 100 factorial, or 100 x 99 x 98 x 97...all the way down to 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1.
Let me illustrate. If you have two wooden blocks, how many ways can you arrange them in a straight line? The answer is 2!, or 2 x 1 = 2. If you had three blocks, it would be 3! or 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 combinations. If you had 4 it would be 4! or 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 combinations.
The higher the number of parts the higher the possible combinations. Our virus, technically can be put together in non-straight lines so there would be many many more ways of combining it. But, we are being gracious here.
100 parts can combine in 9.3325832 x 10157 different possible ways. A cell, however, cannot be thrown together just any old way. Life is a delicate balance and only a very delicate combination will result in it.
The problem is to see if 30 billion years is long enough for 100 parts to randomly combine at one billion billion billion billion per second, and the result be life. The equation is simple. 30 billion years equals 3 x 1010 years. One billion billion billion billion equals 1 x 1036. 30 billion years of seconds equals 3 x 1010 x 365 (days) x 24 (hours) x 60 (minutes) x 60 (seconds). This equals 9.4608 x 1017 seconds. We take the total number of seconds, 9.4608 x 1017, and multiply it by the number of combinations per second which is one billion billion billion billion or 1 x 1036. The equation would be 9.4608 x 1017 seconds times 1 x 1036 combinations per second. This equals 9.4608 x 1053 combinations. This means there are still approximately 10104 combinations left to perform. This is not nearly enough time to allow a simple cell with only 100 parts to pop into life. The probability of the cell forming is zero.
If we were to look at cells with hundreds of more parts, which would be more realistic, the odds against its forming are multiplied exponentially. Yet, evolutionists maintain that the spontaneous formation of life on the earth is a fact. How can they believe that? It seems to me they have less evidence to go on than we Christians do in believing in Jesus.
- posted by Norm Weatherby @ 10:26 PM
Post a Comment