Fine Tuned For Life? Surely not! Off Topic? Definitely!

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

I was going to try and break my last post down into even simpler pieces, but to be honest, after reading it again a few times, it's as simple as I can make it.

I'm assuming here, btw, that "fine-tuned" means "fine-tuned-for-us", the same sense that the term is used by the religious. It is not used in that sense by that small number of careless physicists who misuse semi-religious terminology to make a lously point, poorly.

It still makes no sense, see my clock joke / analogy..

No, "fine tuned" in the scientific context means physical constants fine tuned to a very specific set of parameters that allow carbon based life to emerge in our universe. Stop the anti religious ranting and read the article.

The problem for the anti "fine tuned" crowd is as more and more evidence accumulates showing how fine tuned the universe is, it blows bigger and bigger holes through string theory and the multiverse hypothesis. After 40 years and hundreds of millions of research $ later, the string theorists are like a drowning pack of rats clinging on to a sinking ship as they see their motherload heading for the rocks.

Trust me, string theory / M-theory / multiverses is a massive load of bollox. Something that can never be experimentally tested is not science.

Sarky

You're just repeating things that have been explained to you. "Fine tuned" does not mean what you think it means. The astrophysicists you think back you up are not actually backing you up. And around and around you go.

pauldla

TwoShedsJackson

nagirrac wrote: »

A theist, a deist and an atheist return from the pub and find their living room inhabited by a clock, a device they have never encountered before. They eagerly take the cover off and marvel at the inner workings.

Theist: Glory to God, proof at last of my Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/Zeus

Deist: This was obviously designed by a very intelligent being, more intelligent than I am. I wonder how it works?

Atheist: Who left the fcuking window open. That was some wind that blew through the house and made this thing out of the siht that was lying on the floor.

This is just embarrassing.

I suppose the possibility that someone left the clock there never entered any of their heads?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Maybe a good start is defining what the "fine tuning argument" is in scientific terms rather than lay man's terms. From the above article by Luke Barnes "The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small". That is all the "fine tuning argument" says and the vast majority of astrophysicists, with the notable exception of Victor Stenger, accept this.

"Fine tuned" is not a scientific argument, and if that was "all" the fine tuning argument said then it would not be called the fine tuning argument. You ignore that the vast majority of scientists, particular Hawkings, are actually ridiculing the fine tuned argument when they reference it.

For example if you look at the odds of any particular number in the lottery coming up are tiny, but it would be a fool who thinks therefore that the lottery is some how fine tuned to produce that particular result. The lay person says clearly I was meant to win the lottery, where as the scientists (someone like Hawkings) says it might appear that way but lets try and understand the processes behind the lottery system so we can figure out what really happened.

Barnes, who has a fondness for really ridiculous arguments, claims like yourself that the fine tuning argument is just a rational observation of the universe divorced of any conclusions in relation to what created but then why call it "fine tuned". Unsurprisingly also like yourself, he eventually uses it to suppose that intelligent creation is a reasonable conclusion.

This is sneaking intelligent creation in by the back door, claiming that the concept has nothing to do with asserting a creator but then amazingly ending up at the conclusion. Of course the fallacy is the assumption that life was the end goal or purpose, rather than simply something that just happened in this universe because it could, not because anything wanted it to.

The dishonesty is quite spectacular.

TwoShedsJackson

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

This is just embarrassing.

I suppose the possibility that someone left the clock there never entered any of their heads?

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I DON'T KNOW SO IT MUST BE GOD

pauldla

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

This is just embarrassing.

Actually, it puts me in mind of another old joke.

A bear hunter was out in the woods one day, stalking his prey. Suddenly he feels a paw on his shoulder, and a voice growls “You’re up here bear hunting, aren’t you? I hate bear hunters, boy, and I’m going to teach you a lesson”. And with that, the bear rips down the hunters trousers and f*cks him up the ass. The bear hunter stumbles home, crying, having been violated in the most awful way possible.

He plots revenge.

So a few days later, he goes back into the woods, armed with his high velocity rifle. No bear will do that to him and get away with it. He carefully makes his way through the woods, laying out his traps for the bear, when he suddenly feels a paw on his shoulder. “You again? I thought I taught you your lesson last time, wee man. Seems I’ll have to teach you again.” So the bear rips off the hunter’s trousers, and rapes him up the ass yet again. The hunter stumbles home, tears in his eyes, sullied beyond belief and utterly humiliated. The shame, the pain, the mortification, is almost too much. Retribution shall be his!

So after a few days, he decides the time has come to visit a terrible revenge upon his tormentor. Nothing will do him but to extract a fitting retribution upon that awful bear: that bear’s head will soon hang on his wall. He builds his hideout, lays his traps, and settles down for a long wait. Vengeance shall be his!

Two days into his stakeout, he suddenly feels a paw yet again on his shoulder, and the all-too-familiar voice growls “You don’t come up here for the hunting, do you, laddie?”

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

I accept my prior use of the word assume may be misleading. However, the distinction is what kind of life are we referring to.

again, the claim of the fine tuning argument is that fine tuning leads to intelligent life or "life as we know it". I would say "appears" to lead to intelligent life or "life as we know it" (my words, not the article).

"Life as we know it" is the only life we are aware of, so while fine tuning could have (and perhaps has) led to a variety of life in the universe, we only know our form of life emerged.

The fine tuning argument can logically be used to argue for the existance or for the non existance of a creator. It is used a lot by theists which I imagine is why there is such resistance from atheists to the argument.

Again, why is life so important? A lot of my previous posts ask this question and you have completely ignored it. All the constants and conditions that we say were tuned to bring about life also were tuned to bring about everything else. Change those constants and conditions and its not just life that would disappear, everything would be effected (assumed anything could exist).

On a scientific scale, life (as we know it) is simply a physical process.
On an astrophysical scale the process of life is out sized by the process of nuclear fusion by a factor of 30,000,000,000,000 to 1.
You might as well find a single atom of deuterium in the sea and then assume the entire ocean was fine tuned to produce it.

If the sun let off a big enough fart all life on this planet would end. Life is nothing in the universe, a side reaction the size of an electron in a test tube the size of the milky way.

Sarky

To be pedantic, life is more a process that emerges from the interactions of thousands of simpler physical processes. I wouldn't call it directly physical in itself, which is perhaps why religious people get so protective and stupid about it, but it can pretty easily be traced back to the interactions of simpler processes.

I'm not sure that people making fine tuning arguments understand the difference between things and processes, really. It might remove an awful lot of confusion if they did.

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

To be pedantic, life is more a process that emerges from the interactions of thousands of simpler physical processes. I wouldn't call it directly physical in itself, which is perhaps why religious people get so protective and stupid about it, but it can pretty easily be traced back to the interactions of simpler processes.

I'm not sure that people making fine tuning arguments understand the difference between things and processes, really. It might remove an awful lot of confusion if they did.

Very true, we think of life as a thing that is made, rather than a weird thing that happens as just part of the way chemistry works.

Its like watching a house burning down and thinking "Clearly the purpose of this is to make fire", rather than thinking that the fire is simply a by product of the house burning down, which was probably not done to make fire in of itself.

But then the biggest issue with the fine tuning argument is think that life is some how important or special in an objective sense, rather than simply some interest process that happens when certain chemical laws are present.

Turtwig

*Glances around nervously*

I'm not really going to comment here in detail my views would be more along the line of those of the OP. Not the that universe is fine tuned for what we colloquially refer to as life* but that it does appear to be fine tuned.

In any case, I think I posted this or a similar article in the interesting forum thread, if I didn't I should have. It's somewhat relevant to this thread.

*Here's a fun one for you : Define 'life'.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

*Glances around nervously*

I'm not really going to comment here in detail my views would be more along the line of those of the OP. Not the that universe is fine tuned for what we colloquially refer to as life* but that it does appear to be fine tuned.

In any case, I think I posted this or a similar article in the interesting forum thread, if I didn't I should have. It's somewhat relevant to this thread.

*Here's a fun one for you : Define 'life'.

Perhaps it is the living things that have become fine tuned (by evolution or some such process) to the universe?

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps it is the living things that have become fine tuned (by evolution or some such process) to the universe?

Both are correct bannasidhe:

The universe began from something. We do not know at this time what the something was. Somebody will mention "A universe from nothing" by Krauss, but its a misleading title as the "nothing" he is talking about is the quantum vacuum which is very much something.

At the beginnning it had a unique set of physical parameters that determined what kind of universe developed. If these parameters were slightly different we would have some other version of universe or none. We do not know why it had these set of parameters. This is what is called "fine tuning" in science as if the parameters were different life (as we know it) is extremely unlikely or impossible.

skip billions of years to.. In the earth's early environment, conditions (water, heat, pressure) resulted in chemical reactions occuring leading from simple molecules to more complex chemicals . We can reproduce this in the laboratory, so we know how this happened.

Some form of early self replicating organism or organisms resulted from higher level chemical reactions. We do not know currently how this happened. Even the most basic self replicating organism we can imagine is still pretty complex.

Once started, life evolved in direct response to its environment, so absolutely life is fine tuned to its environment in that sense. Every feature we see in every species is related to the environment it or a prior species encountered.

Apologies if you knew all this already

Doc_Savage

i'm para phrasing quite a bit here, but your use of language is confusing the issue for me.

nagirrac wrote: »

.........slightly different we would have some other version of universe or none. We do not know why it had these set of parameters. This is what is called "fine tuning" in science ...........

The word why should really read "how". Why is a philosophical question and doesn't sit well with most science.

The only "why" question i can think of to ask is; why ask the question that you have in the first place?

i'll go back to the analogy of a lottery again, if you try predicting 6 numbers drawn from a pool of 40 the odds are very large, yet the probability of one of those sets coming up has the same high probability as any other set. when you make a selection then the probability for that set appears to collapse. That is only because the statistics are only useful before the selection is made. So why ask why after the fact?

just saying, and that probably made a lot more sense in my head than it does typed out...:pac:

oldrnwisr

OK, before I get to any of the replies since my last post I'm going to finish my list of problems/observations of the fine-tuning argument.

8. Precision

The next problem with the fine-tuning argument is what we mean by fine-tuning. How fine is fine? Proponents of this argument use a human evaluation of what fine is rather than an objective and more importantly, consistent assessment.
To illustrate this problem I'm going to use a readily-accessible albeit slightly irrelevant example. One of the earliest and still most vernacularly popular forms of the fine-tuning argument presented involves the orbit of the earth. A lot of religious proponents of the argument like to comment on how, if the earth were just a little bit or a "few" percent closer to or further from the sun, then life could not exist and so the earth must have been fine-tuned for life. Now if we take the most pessimistic estimate for the goldilocks zone around the earth (Hart et al. 1978), we can see that on an everyday percentage basis the claim is true. If the earth were just 5% closer and just 1% further away from the sun, life "as we know it" could not survive. However, this changes when we talk actual numbers. The size of the habitable zone from Hart is 0.95-1.01AU. 1AU = 149597871km. Therefore the habitable zone is approx.9 million km across. To put that in context, that is over 700 times larger than the diameter of the earth. So not fine-tuned.
When we look at the more "scientific" fine-tuning arguments we see a similar if not quite as exaggerated, mathematical sloppiness. Take the strong nuclear force, for example. In The Accidental Universe, Paul Davies argues that if the strong nuclear force were just 2% stronger than it is then diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. However, when we examine the numbers we see the problem. Past a limiting distance, the strong nuclear force between quarks has a distance invariant value of approximately 10kN. So Davies assertion rests on a value range of 200N, and that's before we get to how weak we can make the strong force before things make life impossible. So again it all depends on what we mean by fine.
In the end the question of precision is tied to testability. If we consider the set of all universes which can support life say, UL, then there is a complementary set of universes UNL, where life is not possible (for given values of physical constants. However, there must exist a third set UNU, where the values of the physical constants would prevent a stable universe from existing in the first place or one which would be incredibly short-lived. Therefore, to accurately determine fine-tuning we would need to be able to assess the entire available value range of physical constants and isolate the portion of those values where a stable universe is possible and also the portion of that portion where life is possible. Then we could start to make a determination about whether the universe truly is fine tuned.
To illustrate my point let's take the strong force again. The current value is 10kN. So on the basis of a 200N shift, Paul Davies is satisfied that the universe is fine-tuned. Now if a stable universe was possible with a strong force in the range 0 - 1MN, then fine-tuning would be eminently plausible. However, if the actual possible range of values is say 9-11kN, then fine-tuning is much less plausible.


9. History

The other problem for fine-tuning proponents is history. As Edmond Burke once said: "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." This is not the first time in history that a fine-tuning argument has been made and what we have learned from previous arguments is that the appearance of a fine-tuned universe usually means that there's something we have overlooked. There are three brief examples to show this:

• The Ptolemaic geocentric model. The belief that the earth had been specially placed at the centre of a universe made for us. Eventually discarded with the advent of heliocentrism and the work of Copernicus and Kepler.
• The static universe model. Einstein's original invocation of the cosmological constant to jury-rig the existing static universe model prompted the original modern wave of fine-tuning arguments in the 1920s. Eventually the Big Bang theory overtook the static model.
• The flatness problem in cosmology. Specifically the matter/energy density at t0. With the work of Alan Guth on cosmic inflation beginning in 1979, this problem too is considered resolved among most physicists.

Similarly, if we skip over to biology for a second we see the same thing. One of the things that struck me about one of nagirrac's previous posts is this quote from Hawking:


"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers appear to be very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

It bears remarkable resemblance to this:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker)

Both Hawking and Dawkins make the same subtle implication, that how things appear and how things actually are are two very different things.

Ultimately, history is one of my biggest reasons for not buying into the fine-tuning argument. Yes, I admit there are some physical parameters which only permit life in a narrow range of values but that fact is just an intellectual curiosity, nothing more. It tells me that there is something there to explain that which we haven't discovered yet just like there was the last times that fine-tuning came up. To use one of my favourite quotes:

"1500 years ago everyone knew that the earth was flat. 500 years ago everyone knew that the earth was the centre of the universe and 15 minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."


10. On the insufficiency of theistic explanations

I should apologise at this point. Firstly, this post and the one before it are probably overly long-winded and take too long to get where they're going and secondly, there isn't really a logical order to my points as I'm pretty much dealing with ideas as they hit me. So thanks to anyone still with me at this point.

Now, one of the things that prompted me to enter this thread in the first place was nagirrac's original assertion that the acceptance of the premises of fine-tuning leads to just two possiblities: either a creative intelligence is responsible or we live in a multiverse where every conceivable permutation of values is played out. Now nagirrac has made plain his dislike of the multiverse solution as unscientific due to its lack of testability and thus asserts that both positions have equal merit.
The problem with this approach is what happens if we allow for a creative "designer." First of all we encounter the classic problem of the argument from design, who designed the designer. The argument basically flows that the fine-tuning of the universe is a phenomenon which is unusual to the point that it requires explanation and the answer is to slot in a deity whose existence doesn't require explanation. So, either you need to explain who fine-tuned the fine-tuner or allow that the fine-tuning of the universe doesn't require explanation (in a philosophical sense).
The second problem with the designer solution arises when we consider the properties that this designer must necessarily possess. The most important characteristic, for me, is omnipotence. Most, if not all, theistic claims hinge on a god which is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent etc. etc. However omnipotence is the only characteristic of relevance here. If the universe really is fine-tuned and there are a specific set of values which are needed to permit life, then this creative intelligence is bound to obey them. If God is omnipotent, on the other hand, then fine tuning is not necessary and this creative intelligence could have created life in a universe which should not be able to sustain it.
Finally, there is a real problem suggesting that the fine-tuner is the Christian god, given (assuming that the bible is an accurate representation of Yahweh) the emphasis placed on faith throughout the bible. As Douglas Adams said:

"I refuse to prove that I exist says God for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. But says Man, the babelfish proves you exist and so therefore you don't.QED. Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that says God and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."



11. Information theory, mathematics and "Just 6 Numbers"

Another problem with the fine-tuning argument is that the "constants" claimed in a lot of the pro fine-tuning arguments are not constants which we encounter in everyday life such as speed of ligjht, strong force etc. but a more esoteric set of derived, dimensionless constants. Take some of Martin Rees six numbers, for example:

N = ratio of strengths of gravity to electromagnetism (gravitational coupling constant)

Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass

This creates two problems.

First of all, by creating derived constants built on other constants, the idea of independence goes out the window. For fine-tuning to hold, each of the supposed physical constants must have the potential to be individually adjusted while all others remain constant. However, given the relationships between the variables involved, this kind of adjustment, for the most part is impossible. Furthermore, it has been suggested in the literature that altering the initial conditions may still result in convergent universes with similar outcomes:

The minimum mass of the first stars and the anthropic principle

Secondly, the degree of mathematical gymnastics that has to be done to achieve these dimensionless ratios in the first place leads fine-tuning to potentially fall foul of information theory. Robert Klee has a good treatment of this area here:

The Revenge of Pythagoras: How a Mathematical Sharp Practice undermines the Contemporary Design Argument in Astrophysical Cosmology


12. Conclusions

OK, I think I've bored everyone for long enough. Time to condense the last two posts.

First, I'm not sure that we can say given our current understanding of physics that the universe actually is fine-tuned. We don't know how many independent physical constants there are, so the ones that do appear to be fine tuned like nuclear efficiency, ε, may be the outliers of a larger data set.

Secondly, the fine-tuning arguments currently in circulation fall foul of good science in two respects a) they are overly specific (i.e. Luke Barnes article posted by Nagirrac which restricts the argument to a universe fine-tuned for "intelligent" life) and b) they are based in the main on a priori assumption about the scope of possibilities in which life can exist. As Jernal posted the definition of life isn't something we've even got a handle on yet, so to make confident predictions about what is possible under various permutations of inital parameters is bordering on reckless.

Finally, if we accept the premise that the universe is fine-tuned then that means that ... drum roll ... the universe is fine-tuned. That's it. As I already said it's an intellectual curiosity. Just as we don't currently know what caused the big bang, we don't know what caused the fine tuning. So claiming to know what nobody possibly can know or suggesting what could possibly be the cause is at best foolish and at worst downright dishonest.

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

I have to say I just fundamentally disagree with this point. There are currently only three spatial dimensions in our known universe, so in terms of honest scientific discourse we have to work within the confines of what we can actually experimentally measure and describe. Regardless of how much effort and resources have been expended on string theory there is exactly zero evidence so far for any additional spatial dimensions and in my humble opinion such evidence will never be found.

Let's go back and remind ourselves what we're arguing here shall we. The proposition is that there are a set of physical constants which if altered would prohibit the development of life. One of these constants, denoted D in Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" is the number of dimensions in spacetime. Yes, I know that we only know about three dimensions. The question is, if there were a higher number of dimensions, say 4 or 10 or 26, would this permit the development of life. My money says possibly. I don't see anything to suggest that life could not exist in four or six or eight spatial dimensions. Granted chemistry and certain aspects of physics would be completely alien to our current understanding but there's no reason to suggest that life is not possible.

nagirrac wrote: »

The first issue you raise (time) is an interesting one. When we speak about the universe, the concept of time as you know is very different depending on one's perspective so to speak. From our human experience time has a specific meaning and is measured in terms of rotations of the earth, orbits around the sun, etc. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in the context of light or any electromagnetic wave travelling through space, time as we understand it has no meaning. A photon leaving point A to point B has no space to encounter and no time elapses along the journey. The evidence of the early universe suggests what first existed and indeed still exists at a fundamental level is a low energy electromagnetic field or fields (the quantum vacuum, which is not "nothing" regardless of how Krauss titles his book), and everything we know of as a material universe emerged from that. So, for context, the most fundamental aspect of our universe has no concept of time as we percieve it.

The second point I would like to make is to challenge your definition of life as in what life can be sustained and for what period. Clearly life as we understand it today cannot be sustained indefinitely but why limit ourselves to life as we understand it today? Life emerged on our planet 3.5B years ago and has evolved dramatically over an incredibly short timespan (time by our perspective), over the past 20,000 -30,000 years from a hunter gatherer society to one that has explored its solar system. Why would evolution stop at this point given that in terms of technology it is accelerating? Regardless of the apparent randomness of prior evolution, humans increasingly have control over future evolution. I see no reason why within 100 years we will not have AI machines that duplicate the intelligence and bodies of human beings and within 1000 years virtual versions that far surpass our capabilities. If personality and consciousness is purely material then it can be duplicated and programmed in a far more reliable and reproducibile fashion than we ourselves exhibit. Why would a lifeform that can duplicate itself and build a body for itself to deal with an increasingly hostile environment be any less than us? We have little idea today of the technologies involved just as nobody in the past imagined a cell phone.

As far as the time aspect goes, I was higlighting the fact that the universe as it stands right now, to the extent that it was fine-tuned at all was not fine-tuned for us or even for biological life. The portion of the lifespan of the universe as we measure where biogenesis is possible is absurdly small compared to the whole.

With regard to your life comment, I see where your going and I accept the possibility of the development of a machine intelligence or other non-biological extension of human development. However this expansion of the definition of life only serves to further weaken the idea that the universe can only support a particular kind of life.

Morbert

nagirrac, it is clear that you did not understand my original post to you.

Statements about 'fine tuning' are statements about the standard model. They are not statements about the universe itself. The constants that can be tuned are features of the model, and do not reflect real degrees of freedom to be tweaked by some supernatural agency.

Furthermore, even if they did have some metaphysical reality, it doesn't permit us to draw any form of probability or likelihood of them having the values they do.

A case for God cannot be made based on such "fine tuning".

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With regard to your life comment, I see where your going and I accept the possibility of the development of a machine intelligence or other non-biological extension of human development. However this expansion of the definition of life only serves to further weaken the idea that the universe can only support a particular kind of life.

Thanks for your great responses. Well, the deist argument is that the universe was right from the beginning for development of intelligent life, and as such is purposeful as opposed to random. If that is the case then we are inevitably going to have to make machine copies of ourselves as the technology evolves. If you had the choice would you pick a human body or one where you replaced everything as it got damaged or aged.

We have to at least imagine what the next stage of human evolution will be. We are likely to be around for a while, even if a pandemic took out 80-90% of the population there would still be nearly 1 Billion people.

We also appear to be getting smarter overall but maybe that's an illusion.

Naz_st

nagirrac wrote: »

You should know surely how you came about and why you have the DNA you have. It is not almost impossible odds, once your parents decided on a certain course of action, the odds of your exact DNA existing became quite high.

No, you're way off on that one. We each have 23 chromosomes from each parent. Even ignoring chromosomal recombination (which makes the odds astronomically higher), just the chances of getting the 46 chromosomes I have is 2^23 * 2^23 ~ 70 Trillion.

Those odds are vanishingly small, but here I am, what does that prove? Nothing. Because those odds only matter if you are specifying the target before it happens.

I liken the fine tuning argument to this:
Someone at a playground on a merry-go-round, spinning fast, blindfolded, who throws a tennis ball over their shoulder. The chances of it hitting a specific marked target on the ground are astronomically low. After it lands, another person runs over to the spot where it landed and marks it with an X, and then goes around telling everyone how he saw the thrower hit that spot while blindfolded and spinning on the merry-go-round and what a miracle it was.

Do you see the difference here?

Zombrex

Naz_st wrote: »

No, you're way off on that one. We each have 23 chromosomes from each parent. Even ignoring chromosomal recombination (which makes the odds astronomically higher), just the chances of getting the 46 chromosomes I have is 2^23 * 2^23 ~ 70 Trillion.

Those odds are vanishingly small, but here I am, what does that prove? Nothing. Because those odds only matter if you are specifying the target before it happens.

I liken the fine tuning argument to this:
Someone at a playground on a merry-go-round, spinning fast, blindfolded, who throws a tennis ball over their shoulder. The chances of it hitting a specific marked target on the ground are astronomically low. After it lands, another person runs over to the spot where it landed and marks it with an X, and then goes around telling everyone how he saw the thrower hit that spot while blindfolded and spinning on the merry-go-round and what a miracle it was.

Do you see the difference here?

That is a very good analogy, just to add to it slightly, instead of the ground imagine a playground full of other kids, and the ball hits one of the kids in the head.

The kid immediately thinks "Why did he hit me in the head?".

The egotism inherent in the creationist argument, the idea that we are clearly the important and significant end goal of any supposed process, is perhaps its greatest flaw.

nagirrac

Naz_st wrote: »

No, you're way off on that one. We each have 23 chromosomes from each parent. Even ignoring chromosomal recombination (which makes the odds astronomically higher), just the chances of getting the 46 chromosomes I have is 2^23 * 2^23 ~ 70 Trillion.

I understand each individual sperm and each individual egg has a random set of chromosomes from your paternal grandparents and maternal grandparents respectively. My point (somewhat tongue in cheek in response to the prior post) was in the process of conception of an individual person it is one egg with a specific set of chromosomes and one sperm with a specific set of chromosomes involved. At that point your DNA is established, regardless of which individual parent's genes are expressed.