Putting God's Design In Perspective

[Jollybear]

Science is neutral either way. It is up to the individual scientist to determine their own belief, theology and philosophy.

So, science does not say or have any views at all? What then does science do?

In evolution it;s through the population that evolution takes place. The eggs come first with slight variations in the gens of the offspring over time.

If the egg comes first, how will it survive without the parrent? Also how will it get born without the parents?

No, in evolution over time, millions of years, the individual that are defective just simply do not make the cut.

Ok....so, does science say this or does the individual scientist say this from philosophy?

 

[shunyadragon]

So, science does not say or have any views at all?

Not concerning philosophical and theological questions and assertions.

What then does science do?

The foundation of the knowledge of our physical existence all the modern technology.

If the egg comes first, how will it survive without the parent? Also how will it get born without the parents?

The egg has bird parents, That is if the egg is a bird egg.

Ok....so, does science say this or does the individual scientist say this from philosophy?

Individual scientists are Hindus, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Baha'is, and many other assortment of possible beliefs.

 

[Salvador]

This is, however, false. it is NOT just minds that can collapse a wave function. ANY complex external environment is sufficient. And *how* complex it needs to be is rather small. For example, to collapse the wave function of an electron to a specific position can be done by the photons of the CMBR in space. That is sufficient. No minds are required.

According to the results of the DCQE, an idler photon of the DCQE is unobserved until after its corresponding entangled signal photon arrived at D0, interference at D0 is determined by whether a signal photon's entangled idler photon is recorded at D1 or D2 which is on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information had been obfuscated, or at D3 or D4 which is on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information was preserved; this indicates that the collapse of the wave function depends on conscious knowledge of the which-way path information.

Figure 1. Setup of the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment of Kim et al. Detector D0 is movable

Figure 2. x axis: position of D0. y axis: joint detection rates between D0 and D1, D2, D3, D4 (R01, R02, R03, R04). R04 is not provided in the Kim article and is supplied according to their verbal description.

Figure 3. Simulated recordings of photons jointly detected between D0 and D1, D2, D3, D4(R01, R02, R03, R04)


The experimental setup of the earliest performed DCQE involved an argon laser that shot 351.1 nm photons which went through a double-slit apparatus. After an individual photon went through one (or both) of the 2 slits, a Beta Barium Borate Crystal converted the photon into 2 identical entangled photons at half the original photon's frequency. The paths followed by each of the entangled photons were caused to become diverged by a Glan-Thompson Prism. One of these 702.2 nm photons (the signal photon) then traveled on a path from the Glan-Thompson Prism to a lens and then to a detector designated as D0. This point was scanned along its X-axis. A plot of the "signal photon counts" recorded at D0 versus X were examined to determine if the cumulative signal formed an interference pattern. The other entangled photon (the idler photon) went from the Glan-Thompson Prism to another prism where the idler photon was then deflected along a divergent path, depending upon which slit the photon went through. Beyond this path split, the idler photons encountered beam splitters that gave the idler photon a 50% chance of passing through and a 50% chance of being reflected by a mirror. The beam splitters and mirrors directed the idler photons towards detectors which were designated as D1,D2,D3 and D4. This experiment was setup so if an idler photon was recorded at D1 or D2, then this detected photon could have passed through either slit. If an idler photon were recorded at D3, then it must have passed through the one slit designated as Slit B. If an idler photon were recorded at D4, then it must have only passed though the one slit designated as Slit A. The optical pathway from slit to D1,D2,D3 and D4 was 2.5m longer than the pathway length from slit to D0. Thus, information acquired from an idler photon would occur 8ns later than information acquired from the corresponding entangled signal photon. The idler photon recorded at D3 or D4 provided a delayed "which-path" indication of whether the signal photon with which it was entangled had gone through Slit A or B. Whereas, the idler photon recorded at D1 or D2 provided a delayed indication that such "which-path" information was not available for its entangled signal photon. The experiment used a coincidence counter to isolate the entangled signal from photo-noise, recording only events where both signal and idler photons had been detected. ( after compensating for the 8ns delay ) When signal photons whose entangled idler photons were recorded at D1 or D2, the experimenters detected an interference pattern. When signal photons whose entangled idler photons were recorded at D3 or D4, the experimenters detected a simple diffraction patterns with no interference.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 (2000) - Delayed ``Choice'' Quantum Eraser

Reference: Delayed “Choice” Quantum Eraser Yoon-Ho Kim, Rong Yu, Sergei P. Kulik, Yanhua Shih, and Marlan O. Scully Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 – Published 3 January 2000 Issue
Vol. 84, Iss. 1 — 3 January 2000


The DCQE is unlike the classic double-slit experiment, in that the choice to preserve or obfuscate the which-path information of the idler photon was not done until 8ns after the position of its corresponding signal photon had already been measured at D0.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codign DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage.

Actually, a large portion of so called "junk DNA" has no known function, but you are correct that it also contains regulatory regions

I am not sure that I follow what you are saying. I will have to think about that.

 

[Salvador]

This is, however, false. it is NOT just minds that can collapse a wave function. ANY complex external environment is sufficient. And *how* complex it needs to be is rather small. For example, to collapse the wave function of an electron to a specific position can be done by the photons of the CMBR in space. That is sufficient. No minds are required.

In his treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). He also described how measurement could cause a collapse of the wave function.

Reference: von Neumann, John. (1932/1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Translated by Robert T. Beyer.

John Archibald Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle says that consciousness plays some role in bringing the universe into existence

Reference: The anthropic universe". Abc.net.au. 2006-02-18. Retrieved 2011-01-24.

Other physicists have elaborated their own variations of the consciousness causes collapse interpretation; including:

Henry P. Stapp (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer

Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness)

Amit Goswami (The Self-Aware Universe)

 

[Polymath257]

According to the results of the DCQE, an idler photon of the DCQE is unobserved until after its corresponding entangled signal photon arrived at D0, interference at D0 is determined by whether a signal photon's entangled idler photon is recorded at D1 or D2 which is on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information had been obfuscated, or at D3 or D4 which is on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information was preserved; this indicates that the collapse of the wave function depends on conscious knowledge of the which-way path information.


The DCQE is unlike the classic double-slit experiment, in that the choice to preserve or obfuscate the which-path information of the idler photon was not done until 8ns after the position of its corresponding signal photon had already been measured at D0.

Exactly. it depends on which location the photon is *recorded*. That recording isn't done by a mind, but by a detector. It isn't conscious knowledge that collapses the wave function, but *measurement*.

In his treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). He also described how measurement could cause a collapse of the wave function.

And a fair amount has been done since then. In particular decoherence theory was done in the late 1990's and early 2000's and goes into detail about how and when a wave function 'collapse' occurs. When an irreversible measurement is made, the wave function collapses to a state among those determined by the environment. Consciousness isn't required.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codign DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage.

I assume you are talking about gene recombination during meiosis, where genetic information is copied or switched between homologous chromosomes.

My regulatory regions that are important seem to work the same as they did for my ancestors and I would expect a lot of recombination occurred in the different branches of my lineage in the intervening period prior to my birth. Why does that work but for me, but poses a problem for evolution?

I am not completely sure what you are claiming here. There are DNA sequences that are highly conserved from one generation to the next and those that are subject to recombination. Part of the variation within a genome is changes in the regulatory timing, rate and level of expression of genes. Selection would act to preserve any novel combination that resulted in a fitness advantage for the individual.

Dog snout length is the result of regulation of the genes for snout length during embryonic development. A change in that would result in a variation that may or may not be an advantage. I may not even be that different from the average. Some traits are monogenic and some are polygenic and the level of a mutation on the expression of a trait would depend on how much a particular gene contributes to that trait.

If you think this would stop evolution in its tracks, you will have to explain it, because I do not see how. All that I know is that it is another source of variation for selection to work with and drive evolution, not inhibit it.

 

[leroy]

So why were you going on about the constants being finely tuned then? If you're just saying "wow, the universe allows life - therefore a designer"

no what I am actually saying is “wow, if the values of all these constants where slightly different there wouldn’t be atoms, molecules, stars, planets etc. and therefore there wouldn’t be life.” Even if these values where determined by the laws of nature, it would still raise the question, why did the laws of nature conspired to produce this constants in the “ life permitting rage.” ?

things could have been different, we could have been living in a reality where it doesn’t matter how strong is gravity, stars and planets would form anyway. In this reality the universe wouldn’t be FT

my second point (that you ignored) applies you're just making a blind guess that leads to exactly the same problem with the existence of a designer. It's the same sort of nonsense as first cause arguments - insisting some aspect of the universe requires explanation but then ignoring the same questions when applied to your explanation.

Sure, in that case questions like “who is the designer” or “where did he come from” are simply beyond the scope of the FT argument, the answer could simply be I don’t know.

Every single explanation opens the door for new questions, namely “what is the explanation for the explanation?”….. for example if you tell me that we all came from a universal common (UCA) ancestor I could ask, “and what caused the UCA” and you would probably answer “I don’t know, but who cares the UCA theory is true regardless if we have an explanation for the origin of UCA or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why would the physical laws drive all these independent constants to the narrow life permitting range? You are not removing the necessity of a designer.

How have you shown that it was driven to a narrow range to promote life? How have you eliminated possible natural causes for the apparent tuning?

Pretend that you have a calculator that always gives correct results, the calculator would be FT to produce “correct results” then pretend that the algorithms in the calculator are impossible to change, once you try to change them some repair mechanism would get activated and the algorithm would be restored.

It is fine tuned by humans and human intelligence. This is the watch maker argument.

In this case the calculator could have not been different, but would you therefore conclude that there was not a designer?

A human designer, but that does not follow that we have the same type of designed things in nature or that there is a designer.

Since it does not appear that we have a good understanding of fine tuning, if there is fine tuning, or that life was the reason for the fine tuning, all I am seeing are Designer of the Gaps in that gap in our knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

no what I am actually saying is “wow, if the values of all these constants where slightly different there wouldn’t be atoms, molecules, stars, planets etc. and therefore there wouldn’t be life.”

Maybe not life as we know it anyway. What I have read is that there is debate between physicists over the extent of change possible with some of the constants and that the range may be broader than some of the early claims.

Even if these values where determined by the laws of nature, it would still raise the question, why did the laws of nature conspired to produce this constants in the “ life permitting rage.” ?

How do you tell the difference between conspiracy to a "life permitting range" and consequences that allow a "life permitting range" that our kind of life can exist in?

things could have been different, we could have been living in a reality where it doesn’t matter how strong is gravity, stars and planets would form anyway. In this reality the universe wouldn’t be FT

According to you, it would be FT, but to those different sets of constants and not the set you claim we have now.

Sure, in that case questions like “who is the designer” or “where did he come from” are simply beyond the scope of the FT argument, the answer could simply be I don’t know.

There is clearly a lot that is beyond the scope of the FT argument.

Every single explanation opens the door for new questions, namely “what is the explanation for the explanation?”….. for example if you tell me that we all came from a universal common (UCA) ancestor I could ask, “and what caused the UCA” and you would probably answer “I don’t know, but who cares the UCA theory is true regardless if we have an explanation for the origin of UCA or not.

The UCA has evidence to support it, a theistic claim of a designer does not. A UCA is something we can test for? A prediction that if life on earth has a common ancestry, then the molecule of inheritance should be conserved and ubiquitous can be tested.

If design is correct, then what do you test? You cannot see the designer. You cannot confirm design. You still have to explain a lot of things that make no sense in light of a designer. A designer would not change the conclusion of evolution, since it only claims that some things are irreducibly complex and IR has been refuted out of the argument anyway.

Claiming something is designed is not the same thing as something actually being designed. Claiming fine tuning is not demonstrating fine tuning. Claiming fine tuning was done to promote life is not demonstrating that claim. Human design does not mean that there is a designer. It means that humans have intelligence and design things. We can see that, because we can actually see it happen in real time, in history and in archaeology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That the universe is FT is an uncontroversial fact. For example if the force of gravity would have been a little bit stronger (say 1%) the universe would have collapsed in a black hole shortly after the Big Bang, and life as we know it wouldn’t exist….. in this sense of the concept FT is a widely accepted fact.

Not according to what I read, but even if it were, a designer is not the only possibility for that fine tuning.

sure there is controversy on how narrow the parameters are. but
Whether if a parameter like gravity allows for a difference of +- 0.0000001% or 0.0000002% is irrelevant the argument still stands.

Not to pick nits but you just said opened with "FT is an uncontroversial fact".

I do not see how differences in the parameters is irrelevant, when we do not know the significance of range differences and that the controversy is not limited to the range for gravity. There is controversy over the range of other constants as well. Where did you get your numbers for the range difference? Are these meaningful or just made up for argument sake?

Irrelevant, the actual claim is that the universe is FT to allow the existence of stars, planets, atoms, molecules etc….. These are all necessary “ingredients” for the existence of life, (if you don’t have atoms you can’t have life…..obviously)…. Whether if “life” is the only purpose or not, is irrelevant. … for all we know the universe could have been FT by an alien who was interested in building a universe capable of producing pizza, intelligent life would simply by a bi product of the original intent of creating delicious pizza.

How is it irrelevant when you do not even know that fine tuning occurred with life even as a purpose. You have not eliminated the possibility that life is a side effect. You just dismiss that as if it is irrelevant when it is not.

Are you going to worship a pizza-making alien if that is what it turns out to be or will you continue to worship God?

The argument is that the FT of the universe was caused by a designer, whether if this designer is “natural” or “supernatural” y beyond the scope of the argument.

I know the argument from the creationists. The problem is that it has not been shown that there is a designer and obviously, the fine tuning argument is still controversial. The multiverse hypothesis would eliminate it.

Design can be detected using science, forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, SETI etc. do that all the time.

SETI has not detected design, unless they are picking up local radio stations. But yes, science can detect human design.

For example there are objective/scientific ways to determine if a signal detected by SETI was created by an intelligent agent, whether if the signal was produced by a “natural Alien” or a “supernatural God” would be beyond the scope and the possibilities of SETI

So a natural alien is what you believe created all of existence, then you do not follow the Bible as a literal depiction of creation.

Remember my previous example, science can tell us if I can predict the future, whether if this ability is natural or supernatural might be beyond the scope of science, but one can use the scientific method to determine if I have such ability…..in the same way science can tell us if something was design by an intelligent agent, whether if the designer is natural or supernatural might be beyond the scope of science, but one can use the scientific method to determine design.

I understand all that. I have been practicing science for nearly 30 years. But we have to have a subject. That subject has to be claiming to predict the future. That subject has to present evidence that can be examined, analyzed, compared and contrasted with existing evidence to make a determination on whether that subject is predicting the future. Then a mechanism would be searched for. How is this subject different than the average subject? Are there special conditions in which the subject must operate in order to predict? What is the false positive rate? In other words, the subject and the ability would need to be characterized.

You are claiming that intelligent design is science, but then you are saying that some designers would be beyond the scope for science to determine. Based on that, intelligent design is not science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 but you are still unable to quote a single mistake

2 whether if we share 98% of or genome or 96% depends on whether if we consider gene duplications or not… scientists know which mutations are caused by gene duplication and which are caused by point mutations.

For the sake of simplicity I only focused on point mutations (the 2% difference) but if you what to include gene duplications then you have to explain the 60,000,000 differences caused by point mutations + the thousands of the differences caused by gene duplication. … I was trying to be generous and allowing you to worry only about the 2% differences caused by point mutations, but if you what to include other differences feel free to do it.

In other words a gene duplication doesn’t do anything to explain the 60,000,000 differences caused by point mutations,

I fail to see how this is an argument against hominid evolution at all. Since you are talking about differences between to branches, you have to maintain awareness, that both branches are contributing to the difference by their own individual evolution diverging from each other.

By the way, how do you know that 50,000 beneficial mutations is not enough? What is the actual number of mutations that are required to get the level of divergence between man and chimpanzee that we see now?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again, life is a by product of the complexity of the structures involved. if the constants converge to values that maximize complexity, then life would be a natural consequence. And it isn't so difficult to see maximizing complexity will tend to make the constant go to very specific values that do that maximization.

So, the real question is what the dynamics of the constants are that tend to maximize complexity of the overall system. How fast is the convergence to those values?

Given that we don't really know the values *can* change or that they *can* be any different, the whole discussion is pure speculation.

Despite not knowing if they can change, I have read that some physicists argue over what the range of change could be, before we saw changes that would eliminate conditions that we know to exist now. If a constant could change, some have said there is potentially more flexibility in a proposed constant change than is claimed by others.

To me, this is rather confusing and indicates that you are correct. It is all speculation. Most of the "designed for life" claims are speculation driven, not so much by evidence, but by a bias to see an agenda win out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why would the constants converge to maximize complexity?
This question is valid regardless if the constants can change or not

That is actually a good question and one that I had. It may be beyond the scope of this forum and my knowledge of physics for Polymath to provide an answer I can understand readily. Maybe he can point us in a direction to learn more on our own.

.... but you are correct if you show that natural mechanism have some bias in creating “complex universes” then the design hypothesis would fail..... for example natrual selection would be an example of a "bias" aplicable to life that woudl explain why are there furry animals in cold climates.... if you have somethign analogous aplicable to the universe ID would be falsified

A natural designer might be a falsifiable hypothesis. I would have to think about that a bit. But a natural designer is potentially testable and if it were shown that PT (Pizza Terrestrial) phoned in the universe, that would eliminate all or most all of the global religions completely or at least in large parts.

Showing a natural designer, like an alien, may not be the best way for a religious person to go.

You know, I think SETI could work with a natural alien if they contacted one. At least they would have some evidence to go on.

A designer does not have to have designed everything either. It could have had an active role at some point and allowed things to occur at other points. Those points could be significant too. Maybe this designer fine tuned the universe for star production and it turns out it was good for our kind of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Neutral theory and other evidence points to it acting as a 'mutation sink' of sorts. The selectionist view that it should have been removed is premised on energy use during replication, yet DNA is copied only once, most cells expend more energy just maintaining concentration gradients on a daily basis.

That is right. I have read this in the past and forgotten it. Thanks much for the reminder. See. Your expertise is coming in useful here.

 

[leroy]

I.

By the way, how do you know that 50,000 beneficial mutations is not enough? What is the actual number of mutations that are required to get the level of divergence between man and chimpanzee that we see now?

Well because so far 3,000,000 have been identified (or inferred) as my source shows………

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well because so far 3,000,000 have been identified (or inferred) as my source shows………

I read your source and the statement was that 3,000,000 difference may lie in protein coding regions. But I must have missed where 50,000 mutations came into the discussion. If there are a total of 60,000,000 differences and three million of them are in protein coding regions, are you saying that the three million differences is the result of some number of mutations less than 50,000. Again, the question remains, where did you get a cutoff to compare 50,000 mutations too and determine it would not be enough? What is the needed number of mutations?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well because so far 3,000,000 have been identified (or inferred) as my source shows………

You mentioned gene regulators before and I am wondering what changes in them would be significant. If some of these mutations were in gene regulatory sequences, would a positive impact on expression of key genes be enough to make a smaller number of mutations equivalent to the your known number of needed differences required for the current level of human-chimpanzee divergence?

 

[Prestor John]

.

Up until relatively recently people considered our solar system and the stars above (whatever they were) to be thee center of god's creation. Eventually some of the dots in the sky were recognized to be planets that revolved around our earth, as did the Sun, all of which made up our solar system. This was corrected when it was confirmed that the Earth and these other planets went around the Sun. Some time later it was discovered that the stars were just like our sun: our Sun was a star. With better equipment, astronomers then found that some of the other "stars" were actually great "clouds" of light, which they called nebulae. Further investigation revealed that these nebulae were actually tremendous accumulations of stars, which they termed galaxies. (The term "nebula" has since been changed to denote great clouds of interstellar dust and other ionized gasses.) And there are trillions of these galaxies. So our "universe" went from being a solar system, to include the vast reaches of space, But the structure of our universe doesn't end there. The gravity between galaxies has drawn them into enormous clumps, which in turn form galaxy superclusters---our Milky Way galaxy is part of the Laniakea supercluster. Moreover, the distances between all these elements of the universe are enormous, which are denoted in light years; the distance light travels in one year. The closest spiral galaxy to us is the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), which is two million light years away.

To give you an idea of how immense the universe is,

"Right now, the observable universe is thought to consist of roughly:

10 million superclusters
25 billion galaxy groups
350 billion large galaxies
7 trillion dwarf galaxies
30 billion trillion (3×10^22) stars, with almost 30 stars going supernova every second"
source​

Within the Milky Way galaxy our star is 1 among 100-400 billion other stars.

​

And:

So, the question is, "Why"? Why did god bother with it all? While the existence of our plant and the life on it depend on the configuration of our solar system, they don't depend on the existence of neighboring stars, the Milky Way, other galaxies, galaxy superclusters or any other far reaching structures of the universe.

Of course, I don't expect any answer to be more than speculation, but I am looking to see how one squares the enormity of the universe, both in size and content, with the contention that it was all designed by god.

.

God creates children, they ultimately become as He is, they continue to create children as He did.

The universe is the home of the Divine Family of God, of which we are members.

 

[Jollybear]

When I was religious I tried to prove the Christian god was real. I prayed to God, I ask God to reveal itself, God remains hidden. Therefore I'm became an Atheist.

Hmmm....let me ask you something, when you wer seeking God, was it in a non chalunt kinda way or was it with a zealous hunger? When you are hungry for spiritual experiences and you deligently seek them, youl have them.

Also your lack of results is no barring on the fact that i have had as well as millions of other people have had spiritual experiences.

If you want to prove a god exist, you need objective evidence that is testable.

Sorry, but the way you defined "objective" earlyer is no different then the definition of "bias".

Objective is the OPOSITE of bias.

If you presupose theres no God, or soul or spirit world, then do no testing because you presupose theres nothing there to test, what do you call that? BIAS!

What objective evidence do you have a god exist? If science could prove that a god exist, how do you know which god it is that humans worship?

The research of NDEs and ESP and spiritual and religious experiences. And intelligent design and information within nature.

What do you mean what God do humans worship? Theres different ones people can worship. Depends on how they define it.