Fine tuning?

I loved that video, and it does illustrate the problem involved in starting life from scratch.

Someone must have had a whale of a time inventing the sounds that accompany the images!

Where did you find that video?

David

Simple YouTube search, if I recall correctly. Here's another with commentary (you can probably skip the first two minutes of introduction):

https://youtu.be/WFCvkkDSfIU?si=_2RXkREHiEZ0wMx7

I wonder if Drew Berry is aware of the probable impact of his animations on the origin of life debate, and perhaps the entire theory of evolution by natural selection. Imagine if James Tour had used one of those films as part of his debate on life's origins (I assume he didn't because I couldn't stand their awful descent into simply calling each other liars - I wondered how they avoided actually coming to blows.

I hope the science-DI community (as opposed to the Bible-bashing DI community) make good use of those amazing films.

David

I wonder if Drew Berry is aware of the probable impact of his animations on the origin of life debate, and perhaps the entire theory of evolution by natural selection. Imagine if James Tour had used one of those films as part of his debate on life's origins (I assume he didn't because I couldn't stand their awful descent into simply calling each other liars - I wondered how they avoided actually coming to blows.

I hope the science-DI community (as opposed to the Bible-bashing DI community) make good use of those amazing films.

David

I wondered the same but that initial 2 minutes of introduction to the second video(above) seems to indicate that the makers of the video are all firmly with the orthodox NS/RM camp. Again I have to state the disclaimer that I have no scientific training but, having done so, I find it a conundrum as to how DNA evolved in that manner when it is present in the first biological cells to appear on this planet. Which means it is PRE-evolutionary (Darwinian evolution describes organic, cell-based evolution). That elephant in the room seems to be ignored by the evolutionists and it is why people like James Tour get so heated in debates.

I try to be open-minded and I have read arguments for pre-DNA, RNA-World evolution but I've also read how these arguments can be easily dismissed (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/ ). So we, as the lay public, are not being honestly served by our scientific community who seem hell-bent on maintaining a materialist, neo-darwinian front. It seems to me that there is no appetite to even question that adherence or look at alternatives. Anyone who does is ostracised and anyone who wants to know about alternatives only have the DI, with its evangelist baggage, to turn to.

I wondered the same but that initial 2 minutes of introduction to the second video(above) seems to indicate that the makers of the video are all firmly with the orthodox NS/RM camp. Again I have to state the disclaimer that I have no scientific training but, having done so, I find it a conundrum as to how DNA evolved in that manner when it is present in the first biological cells to appear on this planet. Which means it is PRE-evolutionary (Darwinian evolution describes organic, cell-based evolution). That elephant in the room seems to be ignored by the evolutionists and it is why people like James Tour get so heated in debates.

I try to be open-minded and I have read arguments for pre-DNA, RNA-World evolution but I've also read how these arguments can be easily dismissed (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/ ). So we, as the lay public, are not being honestly served by our scientific community who seem hell-bent on maintaining a materialist, neo-darwinian front. It seems to me that there is no appetite to even question that adherence or look at alternatives. Anyone who does is ostracised and anyone who wants to know about alternatives only have the DI, with its evangelist baggage, to turn to.

Agreed, and remember until DNA is encoded with the information that makes cells function (primarily information to create proteins) it is analogous to a new hard drive - useful if you have the information to place on it, but useless otherwise.

If the world doesn't blow itself up, I see a huge scientific collapse coming. The science establishment has allowed lots of unsupported dogma to build up for too long - from evolution by RM/NS, to the idea of quarks that can't ever be seen because of their properties, from a big bang that seems to be held up by a lot of shakey ad-hoc assumptions - to the invention of "dark matter" to explain why Einstein's theory of gravity doesn't seem to apply at galactic scales......... The problem is widespread, and probably comes from the fact that scientists prefer their careers to being honest.

David

Actually, I'm not so pessimistic about science nor scientists. Yes, from the POV of our discussions here, many scientists appear to be missionaries for the atheist/materialist faith but that is probably a small percentage of the whole of scientific endeavour, much of which is done for the improvement of our lot here on earth. I suspect that in most cases, ideology does not play a significant part in the direction of scientific endeavour. I don't see a massive conspiracy at play here.

When it comes to the fringes, however, the conspiracy seems real: jobs are lost, university tenures are at risk and individuals are attacked for daring to challenge the orthodoxy. The way I understand it is that those who defend and enforce that orthodoxy see themselves in a war between science and religion. Personally, I believe that to be a bogus battle of ideologies which is neither scientific nor spiritual.

Actually, I'm not so pessimistic about science nor scientists. Yes, from the POV of our discussions here, many scientists appear to be missionaries for the atheist/materialist faith but that is probably a small percentage of the whole of scientific endeavour, much of which is done for the improvement of our lot here on earth. I suspect that in most cases, ideology does not play a significant part in the direction of scientific endeavour. I don't see a massive conspiracy at play here.

When it comes to the fringes, however, the conspiracy seems real: jobs are lost, university tenures are at risk and individuals are attacked for daring to challenge the orthodoxy. The way I understand it is that those who defend and enforce that orthodoxy see themselves in a war between science and religion. Personally, I believe that to be a bogus battle of ideologies which is neither scientific nor spiritual.

I think the trouble is that science can go astray horribly easily. The process of peer review can lead to a consensus of some sort, but there is no reason to believe that consensus is correct.

Incorrect theories - such as RM/NS - can keep their grip when they should be discarded for the simple reason that those who referee a particular subject also want to protect their own scientific legacy. For example, Einstein is long gone, but there are plenty of researchers that use his theory in their own research - so if his theory is found to have a serious flaw in it, their research bites the dust too. In the case of RM/NS, this probably intensifies the dislike for any research that casts doubt on orthodox ideas.

Most of the ways that science can veer of course are mired in politics in one way or another, so I won't delve in there, but why do you think there is increasing talk about the fact that much recently published research cannot be reproduced?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

This is why several of us here do have a science background and are decidedly wary of modern science unless it obviously proves itself. For example, nobody could deny that some valid science has been done over the years to come up with computer chips that work several thousand times faster than the main university computer did when I was just starting. Those chips are found in phones and desktop computers, whereas the university computer needed an air conditioned room to itself.

However a lot of science doesn't prove itself - e.g. the science of the big bang.

David

This might be off-topic, but I liked the video.

Kinesin (a motor protein) moving a molecule around a cell.

(from @microscopicture)

https://twitter.com/microscopicture/stat...4947360115

The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws

Luke Barnes

Since physicists have not discovered a deep underlying reason for why these constants are what they are, we might well ask the seemingly simple question: What if they were different? What would happen in a hypothetical universe in which the fundamental constants of nature had other values?

There is nothing mathematically wrong with these hypothetical universes. But there is one thing that they almost always lack — life. Or, indeed, anything remotely resembling life. Or even the complexity upon which life relies to store information, gather nutrients, and reproduce. A universe that has just small tweaks in the fundamental constants might not have any of the chemical bonds that give us molecules, so say farewell to DNA, and also to rocks, water, and planets. Other tweaks could make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible. And with some values for the physical constants, the universe would have flickered out of existence in a fraction of a second. That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.

Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves...

The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws

Luke Barnes

One of the finest reasoned arguments for fine tuning that I have ever encountered. Inexorably concludes in there being a high probability for an intelligently designed Universe and reality. And unencumbered by appeals to faith in religious beliefs. Just faith in the efficacy of pure logical reasoning and probability calculations.

One of the finest reasoned arguments for fine tuning that I have ever encountered. Inexorably concludes in there being a high probability for an intelligently designed Universe and reality. And unencumbered by appeals to faith in religious beliefs. Just faith in the efficacy of pure logical reasoning and probability calculations.

Again haven't watched this yet but was curious about Barnes' views as well ->