Intelligent Design or Accident?

Ref: #51 by mehulkamdar

Absolutely correct. Thanks for the fresh breath of reason. No one can prove non-existence of a phantom. This is a standard and wholly specious ploy often used by fundamentalists, UFO proponents and mystics who count on the ignorance and gullibility of the public.

Here`re a couple of comments I made on September 30, 2005 to ``Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection`` by Dr. Gill:

Dr. Gill says: ``Even after the passage of more than a century, theory of natural selection continues to be hotly debated...``

Not, Dr. Gill, among the biologists that I know. All, myself included, believe evolution through natural selection to have as solid, perhaps an even more solid, foundation as anything in science. However creationists (fundamentalists) have established their own universities that award degrees in science. It`s to be expected that ``biologists`` graduating from these universities would espouse creationism.

And again Dr. Gill says: ``The micro changes that are responsible in creating a random mutant occur over a period of several generations and are not reproducible in the laboratory, at present at least.``

Dr. Gill, how long has it been since you were in a biological laboratory? It`s quite easy, really. Here, as one example among many, is an extract from an article in ``New Scientist.`` I give the URL that will take you to the entire article at the end of my comment.

Evolution in the Laboratory: Up Close and Personal

No longer content with analyzing the fossil record, scientists are returning to the lab in a bid to understand the forces that shape living beings. In these controlled conditions, they can ``create`` evolution for themselves. They can introduce environmental changes to see how species adapt and can watch new species evolve in just a few days.

The following excerpt comes from an article in ``The Observer`` of Sunday, October 2, 2005. Anyone interested should read the entire article at:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1582943,00.html

Sunday October 2, 2005
The Observer

The American Museum of Natural History in New York will open the most far-reaching exhibition in its history on Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, next month. In most countries such a display by one of the world`s top museums would not be the stuff of heated controversy.

But not in America. Not in 2005.

As the rest of the world looks on in amazement at a debate that seemed to have been settled long ago, America is now gripped by a raging battle between evolution and creationism. The museum`s Darwin exhibition will be just the latest battle in the continuing fight.

At the centre of it is the concept of intelligent design, which critics call `creationism lite`. This theory holds that evolution is not a proven fact and nature is so complex that it betrays the existence of `a designer`. Without being explicit there is little doubt the designer is intended to be God.

The exhibition will tackle this theory head on by trying to point out the difference between science and religion. Intelligent design will be explicitly mentioned. `We expect that in some corners the show will be controversial. We are prepared for that,` said Michael Novacek, provost of the museum.

I also suggest that those interested in lucid discussions on evolution (Dr. Gill`s discussion is anything but lucid in my opinion) visit these pages:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18363

http://www.science-spirit.org/patriotledger.htm

http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=84

http://www.science-spirit.org/current.php

Ghalib also said:

Vain is the boast of wisdom, and
The gain of worship is well known

---

Mere dregs in the cup of forgetfulness,
The world of religion.
(from Qasida in praise of Ali)

mirmir

Your contention that biologists do not have any ``concrete proof to show that God does not exist and that God did not create the universe`` is nothing more than a religious attempt at confusing an issue. The onus of providing proof is on those who say that something exists and not on those who are skeptical of it`s existence. Biologists do have evidence of the process of evolution. Fundamentalists have little more than mythology from their scriptures.

In all this noise the fact that religion was a very important force in the evolution of human morals and thought is ignored as fundamentalists use inherently devious theories like Intelligent Design to justify their miserable existence. Moderate religionists have no problem with accepting sientific evidence side by side with following rituals and other religious processes.

Hallo... I just know that there is something greater than us. Recently, a planet 5 times the size of Jupiter was discovered in another galaxy. I don`t think the little spider that shares my bathroom with me has any idea of how large I am at just 5`5`` - nothing compared to Jupiter! Wow, huh?

-zensufi-

PM:

Every new and more generalized theory makes predictions and reveals new information which was beyond the capability of the old theory. For example, Einstein`s theory of relativity provided information, which was not deducible from Newton`s theory. For instance, it came out from Einstein`s theory that speed of light has to be constant for it to work. Energy and mass are essentially the same entity at a very high speed, close to the speed of light. The proof was the atomic bomb. The light rays bend close to a massive body which is symptomatic of the material characteristic of light. There is host of other information which the theory of relativity revealed.

Although it is not known what specific information would be revealed by the unified theory, it would certainly provide great insights into the origin of the universe. Is it multidimensional, more than four dimensional as we know now? Did it start from a big bang (our universe did) or whether numerous other big bangs are occurring every other second as some of the string theorists believe. It might (ought to) explain the nature of the universal constants. What is ``dark mass`` and ``dark energy?`` It might tell us about the ultimate fate of the universe. It is not for nothing that hundreds of the scientists are working on it day and night. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

re. ``If a unified theory (theory that unifies all the four fundamental forces of nature) is developed, it might clarify some of the points of contention.

How so, sir? Pray tell.

re. echoboom #42

``Rumi has already written about that--700 years BEFORE Darwin. He did not write metaphorically either.

If the poetry of Rumi you included is evidence of prescient and pre-science knowldege of evolution, I`m sure I could also sell you the idea that a certain book revealed 1400 years ago attested that life, as every self-respecting scientist nowadays knows, began in the primordial seas.

After all, it does say that ``Verily, .. life sprouts forth from water``, does it not? And this wouldn`t be totally unimaginable a statement for someone living in the desert to make, only on empirical evidence, right?

re. ``Although not many people now believe in the six-day creation story literally, the religionists believe that the theistic God –God of the Bible - exists and he created the universe according to a plan, which is called the intelligent design. Such people are called “theistic evolutionists. The name implies that they consider evolution to be a process initiated and guided by God, presumably in order to bring about the existence of human beings,” (Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, by Phillip E. Johnson, Ch. 4). ``

Indeed. And it`s a totally unnecessary postulation too! You could just as well postulate that this God, in turn was created by Pregod, in order to bring about the existence of God.

``Do they have a positive evidence for their claim? There is no evidence per se apart from the divine revelation; if you do not believe in divine revelation then of course there is no independent proof...The biologists who claim that the human beings are the result of long and gradual evolution by natural selection likewise do not have any concrete proof to show that God does not exist and that God did not create the universe. ``

And neither will the smart ones among them conflate the issues of evolution vs creation and, on he other hand, theism vs athiesm. What they will point out, (though they should have to) is that, at least in the scheme of evolution, God as we know Him/it is really unnecessary.

``They can explain the evolution of man from the primitive form of life which many religionists also are now prone to believe, to some extent, but how did the primitive life itself come into being or how did the universe come into existence, they have no definite answers for these questions.``

And the thing is, they`re happy not having definite answers- having outgrown the childhish, religion-induced, incapability of working with ``glorious`` uncertainity.

[great intellectual setback to the scientists ]

Scientists always have intellectual progress. It is nonscientists who cannot tolerate any revisions think that revisions are incoherrance or whatever. For scientists all theories are provisional.

malik99

{{The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.}}

H.G.Wells followed that line of thought more than a century ago. He was outraged by the class inequality he saw around him in late-19th century Britain – a stark divide between a well-heeled class that could afford leisure and a cultivated lifestyle, and a working class slaving in dark satanic mills and factories and living in wretched conditions. The result was a bleak dystopian vision of the future in The Time Machine - the leisured class have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of cultivation and refinement into a species called the Eloi, feckless and incapable of fending for themselves; while the working class have similarly evolved into a brutish species called Morlocks, who live by preying on and devouring the hapless Eloi. A despairing forecast indeed.

and here is some more food-for-thought: From Ilm-i-ma`aquooli of the ISLAMIC Madrassaas:


``Sufis believe that, expressed in one way, humanity is evolving to a certain destiny. We are all taking part in that evolution. Organs come into being as a result of the need for specific organs (Rumi).


The human being`s organism is producing a new complex of organs in response to such a need. In this age of the transcending of time and space, the complex of organs is concerned with the transcending of time and space. What ordinary people regard as sporadic and occasional bursts of telepathic or prophetic power are seen by the Sufi as nothing less than the first stirrings of these same organs. The difference between all evolution up to date and the present need for evolution is that for the past ten thousand years or so we have been given the possibility of a conscious evolution. So essential is this more rarefied evolution that our future depends upon it.``

Idries Shah. The Sufis

malik:99
Rumi has already written about that--700 years BEFORE Darwin. He did not write metaphorically either.

I hope those who have not come across earlier would appreciate it as well.



Rumi`s story of evolution:


I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man,
to soar With angels blest;
but even from angelhood I must pass on:
all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e`er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones,
`To Him we shall return`

Translated by A. J. Arberry

hamidm writes ``by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ``

Very interesting! It brings up a point in relation to evolution. So far, the theory of evolution has mostly concentrated on the past - that is, how we came to be. However, an equally interesting discussion should be: where is this evolution leading to. In other words, the process of evolution has not stopped. Is it possible that some other species, more intelligent than humans, is in the process of getting evolved - and we just dont know it yet? Also, are humans themselves going to get evolved into different branches?

Perhaps the human divide today of ``haves`` and ``have nots`` will become more profound and permanent in future - giving rise to the evolution of two branches of humanity: the sub-humans and the super-humans.

I recently read a book called ``Guns, Germs and Steel`` by Jared Diamond. In that book he argues that the land mass of ``Eurasia`` evolved to dominate this world because that was the place where the domestic-able animals and crops were first originated (by the pure accident of geography and climate). This was also the place where horses originated, thus giving an advantage to its inhabitants in wars. That advantage grew over thousands of years and to this day it is still the ``Eurasians`` who hold advantage in the world in the ``efficiencies`` of battlefields. All that has happened is that the advantage of horse has now evolved into advantage of other weaponries - air planes, battleships, missiles etc. In pure market terms, its called ``first entrant advantage`` - that is, a company is the first one to enter a market with a new product and then capitalizes on it so much so that subsequent competitors spend their life-time simply trying to catch up.

The point of bringing up that book was that perhaps we humans will get evolved too in various directions based on our ``first entrant`` advantages. The ``haves`` over millions of years of having the superior upbringings and having different worries and life styles than ``have nots``, will develop a completely different personality over millions of years. Perhaps their brain size will become double that of ``have nots``.

The above analysis assumes that the movement of humans from ``have nots`` to ``haves`` or vice versa will slow down to a halt over millions of years.

I know, I could be making an ass out of myself by my above mentioned ramblings. But then, who on chowk doesnt!

… Intelligent design or accident …? I think it is design that makes intelligent use of accidents.

One has to be oblivious of mounting scientific evidence in order to discard the idea of evolution. Doing so on basis of narrow interpretation of scripture revealed to hallucinating men makes it worse. We may as well start believing in men parting ocean by waving their hand.

My own view is closer to “theistic evolution” ... where mechanism of evolution is a part of a greater, intelligent design. More and more ingredients needed for creation and evolution of species may be identified and discovered by scientific methods. Will this provide more answers or pose more questions … remains to be seen. However, what remains a mystery, at least up until now as I have understood, is extremely low likelihood of these ingredients coming together at the right times, in right proportions, in right sequence, for creation and evolution of species … and hence my take on this issue as outlined in the beginning of this post.

shobig-sifar:

The cosmological constant you`re talking about is different. That constant was used by Einstein as a sort of fudge factor to obtain steady state universe from his theory. that constant is important and the scientists are trying to comprehend its true nature. I appreciate your interest in the article.

Mohammad Gill

hamidm #35

sorry my friend, but you make no sense when you say that the definition of species is incorrect. How can a definition of a term be incorrect? It is like saying that the definition of Asia is incorrect and the terms should be used to also include Europe.

You would make more sense if you said that the overall taxonomy scheme itself (of which species is simply one layer) put up by Linnaeus in the 18th century is not valid. However, the fact is that that scheme, despite challenges once in a while, has withstood the test of time albeit with further refinements, new layers of sub-classification and so on. The current revolution in genetics will no doubt in due course provide us with a firmer basis for distinguishing between different life-forms on earth than the knowledge Linnaeus had available to him.

I agree with you when you say we are all family. It is only human arrogance that causes it to emphasize distinctions between humans (racial, religious, caste, ethnic, economic status, worldly power, vip`s vs. masses, whatever) as well as between humans and other creatures. The great-granddaddy of all life on earth was the same single celled microscopic creature that first wiggled around the earth`s oceans 3 billion years ago. Racial distinctions came up a mere 10,000 years ago, and racial distinctions from a scientific perspective are a load of nonsense. There is greater genetic diversity WITHIN the african people, e.g., then any other people on earth.

Does someone who becomes a scientist does so by design or is so by accident?

I think a human-child raised by a monkey in a jungle has a tremendous chance of getting mistaken, by humans, for a monkey.

A monkey`s offspring, raised by humans, can never be mistaken for a human.


Going by the concept of entropy, I think there is a far greater chance of devolution than evolution. We notice this in ``wild`` vs ``cultured`` flora & fauna.

I am firmly convinced that according to the Qur`an the ancestors of present-day monkeys, & their khaloos Phhupaas, were once hamidm2s of their times.

Another nice and precise review Dr Gill. Bravo!
A few points I`d like to add:

Cosmological constant happens to be the greatest issue of contradiction between theoretical and experimental physicists/cosmologists. The observed values of this constant are in sheer disagreement with those predicted by theory. And this is perhaps the reason for the induction of so much effort into research from both sides.

At the Planck scale - the scale of the universe before the big bang - the various forces and constants unify, so we are left with far issue problems to address then at the lower energy scale.

I do not personally think an analogy can be drawn between the Theory of evolution and Evolution of the universe. The universe has evolved on a much more homogeneous and linear pattern, with masses and energies interconverting, and with little or no `innovation`, while that is an important ingridient of Darwinism.

regards
shobig

Re: # 34

tahmed,

....... i think the definition of ``species`` is incorrect ...... just because man and monkey stopped interbreeding does not mean they are a different species ....... by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ......... the fact is that lions and tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring even though they diverged millions of years ago, and so can jackals and domestic dogs ........... just because you have a few chromosomes that are different does not mean you are a different species ............ just look at echoboom - as much as we hate to admit it, he is family ............

hamidm: echosqueek approves of your post!! ha! ha!

tahmed32:

I want to make a correction to my post # 27. The Fine Structure Constant is number 14 on the list and not 8 as stated in my post. Sorry for this lapse.

Mohammad Gill

Re:24

(Almost by definition you cannot have cross-breeding within species (except in rare cases, as in case of horse and ass which produces a jackass, specimen of which can be found on chowk. and even in this case the offspring - jackass - is infertile.)

The offspring is called a mule, I believe

hamidm2: 22

It is such direct street-smarts which I thoroughly admire in a fellow-man. This is what separates humans from scientists. Consider yourself inducted.

The other day someone printed a news item with picture ( BBC) that a women breast-feeds a monkey (now 7 years old & still) in India and insists on calling it her son. Today there was a picture of a little hanumaan sucking at the cow`s udder ( a Budder he`ll be called?).

I too would be waiting for a very unambigous answer--tahmad32, the resident johnny-boy may continue his pansy-antics to amuse us.

delhiwala #28 Gill sahib had mentioned universal constants and i was just wondering why i did not see Planck`s constant in the list. One need not be a scientist to have an interest in science - and I think that is true for Gill sahib and for me and lots of other people on chowk. Nothing wrong with learning about scientific advancements from PBS - or from books and magazines in layman`s language. There are no brahmins in science - only scientists who push the limits of man`s knowledge, and those who appreciate the work they are doing (which is a large segment of the public worldwide), and those who are content merely to enjoy the fruits of their work (which includes everyone, even the naysaying creationists).

On parallel universes, this idea follows from string theory as i understand it. string theory itself is a mathematical construct at this time, but efforts are underway to design ways to test it. one thing is for certain: string theory (with all its incredible implications) is based on solid work. even if it proves to be not completely true, or even completely incorrect, insights provided by this work represent a significant advance in science. The multi-billion dollar particle accelerator being built in europe, as well as the smaller fermi lab (?) facility that has been in existence for some time in indiana, US are I understand expected to check on some implications of string theory.

hamidm #26 you ask for proof of evolution? i got photographic evidence of evolution for you.

Re: # 23
Tahmed Saheb, Plancks constant has nothing to with theory of evolution.

Anyways, are you pointing towards theory of parallel universes, I don`t think anyone has ever proven it mathematically. Einstein came very close to it with the concept of curvature in time, that is uou end up where you start.

I don`t know where and how this author is getting these intersting concepts. It sounds like some Science Fiction novel, I consider myself a student of science, but I have`nt seen or heard such things except on NOVA and PBS channels as prospective theories with no empirical evidence as far as existential Universe is concerned.

Whoever said that we are not Monkeys, is correct however, evolution is a linear progression of time, it takes probably million+ yrs for homo eructus to homo sapiens.

Thanks to Linnaneous, we can feel superior by saying that Monkey is a different genre and species. PEter feeding PAul.

tahmed32:

Planck`s constant did not appear in the list as a separate constant but it is included, for instance, in the fine structure constant, which is number 8 on the list. It might be part of some other constants also. I really do not know the rationale on which this list is compiled. I noticed that the same list was given on several other web sites also. So it seems to be the fairly standard list.

Regarding Hamidm`s comment, apes and humans are two different species. One species does not interbreed with another as a general rule. I know somebody might bring up horses and donkeys; they interbreed and the result is a mule which is barren. Both of them (humans and apes) descended from hominids. A random mutation separated them.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 24

tahmed,

...... don`t get so technical - order, species , same thing as far as i am concerned ......... i asked a simple question - is it possible to breed man with monkey ?.......... and if the answer is yes then we should get on with the business of evolution - i am sure we can come up with ``people`` who can swing from a tree and do complex math at the same time ............

you know what guys...why don`t we for once agree on the real life evidence that shows that Some humans are created while others have evolved.
So Both theories are true. now happy?

hamidm: you disappoint me. humans and chimps are part of the same ORDER (i.e. primates), and no one (other than Urstruly...and now you) considers them to be the same species. They dont even belong to the same FAMILY (i.e. hominidae) within that order, for crying out loud.

Almost by definition you cannot have cross-breeding within species (except in rare cases, as in case of horse and ass which produces a jackass, specimen of which can be found on chowk. and even in this case the offspring - jackass - is infertile.)

Gill sahib: Interesting list of universal constants. I did not recognize Planck`s Constant (which is a determinant of the laws of physics in this universe per the string theory as I understand it) in this list. Planck`s constant being the energy of a vibrating molecule, which this gentleman calculated back in 1900 as being equal to 6.26 times 10 to minus 34 joule seconds, and joule seconds being a measure of angular momentum (I looked this value up on google, so dont be too impressed).

Per the string theory then, ours is just of an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of constants. Some universes would be truly wild and crazy per our understanding while others (like ours) would be more staid and conducive to life as we understand it. The parallel drawn between these multiple universes (each transversing 11 dimensions, btw) is that of mountains and valleys: some universes would be wild and inhospitable like snow covered Mt. Everest, while others (including ours) would be relatively peaceful valleys.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, folks are still having trouble coming to terms with evolution - one of the more ho-hum, well-established fact (NOT theory, by any practical standard) of evolution. :-)

gill sahib,

....... just curious ...... has anyone tried to fertilize a chimpanzee egg with human sperm, or vice versa ? ........ if you could do this, wouldn`t it prove that we are the same species ?

p.s. i have seen some ``people`` walking around who make me think that this has already been tried

Re: # 20
I still to think of us as Monkey, sounds good.

Once I was watching PBS, they took a Monkey and a Jar with a Banana and left a pair of sticks around.

This sucker uses the sticks to make a forcep and grabs the banana, and peels it and eats it.

Monkeys, Dolphins and one other type of Octopus(can`t remmeber the name) have evolved brains.

anyways, good article.

PS: Sometimes, when I don`t eat Egg Benedicts in breakfast I behave funny. Parson my rudeness once in a while.

delhiwala:

No, we`re not monkeys. We`ve evolved into homo sapiens. If I understand it correctly, we`re descended from a hominid who was neither wholly human nor wholly ape. He can be considered to be Australopithecus. One of the species from him became humans and the other ape. But then all life converges into the same common ancestor.

Mohammad Gill

Mr Gill,
Are we all Monkeys then?

Tussey vi Monkey
Assey vi Monkey
Monkey hi Monkey
Aggay Monkey
Pichhey Monkey

Interactors:

I reporoduce hereunder a few lines from ``The Paleontologist`s Tale``, which provides a glimpse, in a light vein, on the debate betewwen the creationists and the evolutionists. The whole ``Tale`` exists on the Internet:

So here we are. Our closest living kin?
The chimp, which as we heard from mon cherie
Is ninety-nine percent genetically
Identical to human beings. Now
Creationists, we`ve heard, say this is how
God made us, living things were all created
From one big common plan, so they`re related
By God`s design, no creature has evolved.
It seems to me, though, that leaves unresolved
A question posed by Ruse: ``Why should God plan
To make such grotesque parodies of man
As baboons and gorillas?`` Contemplate
A question asked by Gould: ``Would God create
Successive species - Lucy, Handy Man,
Homo erectus, us - to mimic
Unbroken evolutionary trend?``
Does God deceive his creatures? To what end?

Mohammad Gill

Accident or Intelligent design....
Creation or evolution....??

What if ....its the Same thing... like two sides of the same coin....

Creation .....then left to the princlples of evolution....??

Mr Gill,

Re: the constants. Absolutely beautiful! Thanks for that.

Umer M

God Says after reading the article:

``Israfeel, blow that horn. Jibreel... it`s time.``

Let me try to comment in some orderly manner as follows:

tahmed32’s comment, “You can fly a plane based on scientific principles. You can’t do that based on conjecture,” is very appropriate. There is so much evidence all around us in support of science that we cannot shut our eyes and obliterate it. Thousands of things that we take for granted in daily life provoke us to ponder.

Consider the ordinary X-ray film, for example, that is used in daily diagnosis of fractures, pulmonary infection of lungs, etc. Years and years of hard work went into its development. Same goes for the MRI. The gadgets that are regularly used in the medical field without which a proper diagnosis cannot be performed, were not always there. They were not wished into existence by the creationists. If you take time to consider the treatment of raw water at a water treatment plant which produces potable water for human consumption, you’ll find ample evidence to believe in science.

Post number 10 by Ozerkhalid shows that he has read relevant material about evolution, which is really good. He needs time to digest the information. The scientist who formulated the concept of punctuated evolution (statsis) is a believer of the theory of natural selection. Please continue reading some more.

Although I had stated in the article, “The theory of evolution has not yet reached that stage where it stands or falls by its own merit. It suffers from extreme extrapolation,” the intent was not to undermine or stymie Darwin’s theory of natural selection. There is nothing wrong with it. Extreme extrapolation referred to the transition from microevolution to macroevolution. There is sufficient empirical evidence to convince the ‘specialists’ that the concept of common ancestral descent is correct. However, it has not been presented to the non-specialist readers in a very convincing manner. A non-specialist reader gets lost in the maze of unfamiliar nomenclature and terminology describing the various fossils.

Ozer mentioned about going to the depths of ocean in pursuit of empirical evidence; believe me the scientists have done precisely that and some more. Just consider a group of white Americans and Europeans, who are so very sensitive to heat, digging and peering into the old rock strata in the gullies of Ethiopia and Kenya in the sweltering summer months, hunting for the old bones and fossils, reconstructing the numerous pieces of a skull together, dating the various ‘finds’ by the complex methods of radio-chrometery – for what? They are collecting evidence in support of theory of evolution. If there were nothing to it, they wouldn’t waste their lives in the wilderness. Science is not mere speculating; it is hard work. I have cut and pasted in the following a list of 26 cosmic constants that BeeJay wanted.

Thanks for SR’s and drlokraj’s comments. Wishing all of you well,

Mohammad Gill

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
More than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and to unevenly
if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous
if slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star dusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun`s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life`s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
24. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
25. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form.

Religeous beliefs and theories based on scientific facts and observations can not be compared head to head.Scientific theories are always open to criticism as they answer some questios and at the same time give birth to some more questions which the next generations try to answer and hence it is a continuous process.Did Darwin ever claim that he has solved the mystery for ever with 100% precision?
On the other hand,the genesis is belief and closed chapter..no arguements but to be accepted as it is.Does Quran say the same thing about it? if yes,then how can one expect muslims to go against that?

Another good one Gill sahib. Thanks for the effort.

Re: # 10 ozarkhalid

It does not seem that you have a hidden agenda to promote the creationists thesis. If that is the case, and you are honestly decrying the hold that dogma (in ALL its forms, pseudo-scientific or otherwise) has on the human mind, then I quite agree with your sentiments ...

Re: # 11 BeeJay

Quite true, such lofty flight of ideas may be like casting pearls before swine. No matter what the nature of the ultimate reality of the universe, the inescapable reality most of us have to focus on asserts itself on the first of each month when rent comes due.

...SR

Thanks for this (as usual) thought-provoking article!

I would be curious to see a summarized list of the 20 or so “cosmic constants”. Is it available somewhere?

Note:
[…It suffers from extreme extrapolation.]
This particular line got me thinking into a completely different direction. As human beings, we are so limited by our size and other physical attributes (let us not even try to get into that of mental prowess and imagination) yet most of us manage to get through life more or less just fine. In the old days, when the “flat earth” was considered a given, it still did not prevent most people from leading normal lives- with all its mixed flavors of happiness/sorrows, virtues/evils, and so forth. If the domain remains narrow enough, one can go on just fine with a much simplified model of life. Sometimes, a discussion whose premise seems to be trying to expand for another set of people (who may be highly resistant to such expansion) the very domain they are “comfortable” with appears futile and I am not sure that many times it can meet the cost/benefit criteria. However, that’s just me!

Mohammad Gill:

Darwin`s model of evolution, known as ``the survival of the fittest``, is inherently flawed and skewered. A gargantuan raft of scientific data illustrates the absence of any empirical scientific evidence in support of the alleged ``spontaneous generation of life`` in the first place, let alone the evolution of life forms from one species into another.

Anthropologically and historically, the fossil evidence to date indicates the spontaneous appearance, without the existence of any earlier related life forms, of a vast number of life forms around 600 million years ago known as the `Cambrian explosion`, followed by very long periods (tens of millions of years) of minor changes occurring within species (a process known as Stasis) and the absence of any examples of possible evolutionary links between species prior to, during, or after this period.

Biochemists identify the most serious flaw in Darwin`s Theory is that due to the `irreducible complexity` associated with the biochemistry at a molecular and cellular level. Darwin`s theory cannot be applied to the evolution of life at this fundamental level, which implies other factors must be operating in the evolutionary process.

Biologically efforts to correlate evolution with mutations in gene frequencies have not embraced success. Exhaustive analysis at the molecular level err to demonstrate the expected correspondence between changes in gene products and the sorts of organismal changes which constitute [what Lewontin called] the ``stuff of evolution.``

I feel that it does not matter, if the evolution is a Darwinian mechanism, such as natural selection, or an alternative evolutionary mechanism. Most do not suffice to explain macroevolution-the origin and history of major innovations such as phyletic lineages. They explain, at best, only microevolution, not macroevolution.

Why has there been such a proliferation of alternative definitions to natural selection? For example, Mohammad Gill, you mention so many variants in your thesis such as that of Imam Ghazali etc...We suggest that they arise because of the failure of the historical, Darwinian concept of natural selection to provide a compelling explanation of major events in the history of organic life, such as the spectacular rise of 50 or so phyla in the Cambrian explosion, and how these phyla changed over time in the history of complex, multisystem life.

It is high time that tainted scientific eyes look at anthropology, biochemistry or biology: all are indicative of the failings of ``the fascist survival of the fittest`` theoreum.

An investigative mind, religious or not, will go even to the depths of the ocean to empirically prove that science should not be worshipped as a religion.

Science too has its trappings. Darwin is a chief pedestal.

Most of us need such pedestals.

Not out of necessity.

But out of desire.

What if it is an accident by design?

I think the emergence of humans on planet earth via Hazrat Adam is a stochastic approach. I think there existed pre Adams in that Domain of universe which completed course of their existence and completed their cycles. And therefore this cyclic expedition has a very valid link to the preceding life. Maybe the blissful existence has contribution added to the dispersion factor to Human Race. Otherwise Prophethood comes under the conception of profanity.

-Dard-e-Dil kay wastay paida kiya Insaan ko
warna ata’a-t kay liye kuch kum na thi KaroBiya.n

(Iqbal)

Just the past weekend I was watching Alien Planet on Discovery. It was a virtual voyage to a distant galaxy, Darwin 4. Light would take 6-7 years to travel from earth to it. Many werid reatures were described and the possibility for their existence was discussed. Some of the comments were:

Human life is very precious and we will appreciate it when we will realise how many complex steps took place. In gist, it was an accident.
We are jsut coming out of the cave like a caveman. It is just a beginning, another 200,000 - 300,000 years will be interesting.

With regard to the religious books, less said, the much better.If the inquiring minds had given up, we would still be thinking that earth is the center of the universe and sun revolves around us.
Every tom, dicka nd harry religious book says some rubbish about earths creation without any proof. I wonder has any one of these have said anything, atleast about the dinosaurs? Now we know they existed and what happened to them. Does any of these books even mention them. If think not because when these books were written no one even knew about these creatures.

Alien planet had a comment : todays earth would been very different had the meteorite not decimated the majority of the creatures they existed then.

The issue is bigger than evolution vs. creationism (or intelligent design, as the creationists have now restated their views). The issue is one of the scientific method vs. conjecture. You can fly a plane based on scientific principles. You cant do that based on conjecture.

re#4: science(as i understand) never concerns itself to the Why part.

so assuming that science is supposed to come up with some prophetic/hallucinatory statements about the reason(s) of existence OR eg. why are we so shit scred by the thought of Death.. is pointless in the first place.

The process of evolution in some form or another as the answer to how the universe was and is currently formed does seem likely..due to the vast preponderance of evidence relative to the word for word ``creation theory``

The question...is as much as science can ultimately offer the ``how`` in all of this..it has not been able nor seem likely to be able to shed one shred of evidence to the ``why`` Stephen Hawkings seems to agree with this latter point in his written works.

delhiwala:

You don`t need my answers to your questions because you have the answers. What a coincidene! You mentioned Lucy and you know what; I have nearly finished reading ``Lucy: The Beginning of Humankind`` by Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey. This is a worth reading book. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Mr Gill:
Ek Gull dusso.
Baba Adam pehla hoya si ya Lucy?????

All of Biblical foundation sounds hollow in evidence that we know for fact life existed much before Abrahem and Adam gospels.

I wonder what your stand is on that subject?

Probably both.

Mutations are `accidents`.