Anthropic Principle

Anthropic Principle. Randall Niles looks at the Fine-Tuning inherent in our Universe.

Whenever I present the Anthropic Principle, I'm often told that I'm oversimplifying things. When it comes to the evolutionary complexity and improbability of human beings, the Anthropic Principle simply states, "We're here, so it must have happened."

I'm often told that I just dont understand the beautiful simplicity of Darwinian Evolution. Since Im not a scientist, Ill never understand how simple code and structures could naturally evolve into simple cells and systems.

Simple? Whos kidding who?

Yes, at the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg looks like a simple, single-celled blip no bigger than a pinhead. However, we now know that amorphous blip contains information equivalent to 6 billion chemical letters -- enough complex code to fill 1,000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small that it would take a microscope to read it.

Through the marvel of DNA, every single human trait is established at the moment of conception. Within hours, that single cell starts reproducing and grows a cilia propulsion system to move the fertilized egg towards the uterus. Within six days, the original cell (now called an embryo) has reproduced its library of information over 100 times. Ultimately, that original blip of life will divide into the 30+ trillion cells that make up the human body.

Wow! Thats at the cellular level. If the simple cell is that complex, what about the simple systems made up of these cellular structures? Come on -- Is there really such a thing as simple, now that we can view organisms using the latest in microbiological and biochemical technology?

What about the human heart? Its a miraculously efficient and durable hydraulic pump that no engineer could dream of producing.

What about the human brain? Its a legitimate 3-pound computer system, 1,000 times faster than the latest supercomputer and with more connections than all the computers, phone systems, and electronic appliances on the entire planet.

What about human eyes, ears, and lungs? What about the digestive tract, reproductive system, and immune response? Seriously, how can we logically explain the random and gradual development of these complex systems?

In light of 21st century science and technology, what would Charles Darwin say on this, his 200th birthday? Actually, he addressed this eventuality in his original theory:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

-- Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Bantam Books, 1999 (reprint of 1859 original), 158.

Visit http://www.AllAboutTheJourney.org/origin-of-life.htm to continue your examination of the Big Bang, Anthropic Principle, and other conjectures about the Origin of Life.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos on the Anthropic Principle and theories related to the fine-tuning in the cosmos!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Anthropic Principle
• Origin of the Universe
• Cosmos
• Origin of Life
• Big Bang
• Science
• Religion
• First Life
• Randall Niles
• You Tube
• Video

[5avan10]

You keep saying that the anthropic principle states that this universe got it "right." By what do you measure what is right? By the reality you live in. Whales floating in the sky isn't right, because in this reality it doesn't happen. What if we evolved as cephalopods instead? Would that be "wrong?" According to what? You fail to grasp the principle entirely. The universe is what it is, because it is what it is- not because it is what is "right."

[michalchik]

Another way of explaining the anthropic principle is by asking the question how many people do you know that were born at the bottom of the ocean? None, That is weird if you think about the fact that 2/3rds of the globe is water. If you have 1000 friends, the probability that all your friends would be born on land is (1/3)^1000 or 7.57x10^-478 absolutely astronomical but that does not matter since the alternative is impossible. Creationist probability estimates include impossible situations.

[1spiders1]

@5avan10 it looks like you have no idea what it is.

[LeeRoy3535]

What do you mean by "get one right?" Typical egocentrical Christian to think that we are the goal of nature or evolution. And I bet he thinks non believers are the arrogant ones.

[NevilleRhysBarnes]

The "fine tuning" created a universe every cubic inch of which will, with the miniscule exception of the skin of this one tiny planet, kill you stone dead in seconds.

Anywhere in space, anywhere on another planet, anywhere in a star--it is all lethal to humans.

A universe made for us? I don't think so.

Not by a competent God, anyway.

[SandBarAndYou]

@rkyeun Any video that says Comment Pending Approval is against a free thinking society.

[gammafreak]

@gespilk Mankind comes up with the darndest things. Chance, or Aliens are what are collective wisdom has come to, anything to explain away creation and responsibility!

Turn away from profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called 1 Tim. 6:20

[Biblehastheanswer]

All cells come from pre-existing cells. That's science. Observational, tested, and true. A "simple cell" with a symbiotic relationship of DNA and protein being created out of chemical compounds has not been. It is speculated to have happened. Therefore Evolution is a religion not a science. Observable science, the real stuff, supports intelligent design and God as the creator.

[Airmanf7]

Wow. I can't tell whether or not this guy is serious or making fun. Is he on the side of a naturalistic view or creationism? Someone please enlighten me.

[Gnomefro]

@gespilk "The big question of WHY there is SOMEthing rather than NOthing is still out there."

It's probably a nonsense question. "Why" in the sense you use it here presupposes causality, which presupposes time, which is part of the universe you're looking for an explanation for. In reality, causality probably isn't a universal principle and in such a reality your question simply doesn't have an answer. Much like "Where's the end of the earth?" doesn't have one.

[thebarbaricwelshman]

The Anthropic Principle is a philosophical approach and NOT based on evidence since we don't have the ability to test it. $100 says this Niles guy doesn't know the origin of this idea. If he had done his research, scientists are NEVER sound on any "qualitative" science. Don't explain things that you do not understand.

[TheLegendarySkeptic]

@5avan10 I know this is an old comment, but it reminded me of Michael Frayn when he said

"It's this simple paradox: the Universe is very old and very large. Humankind by comparison, is only a tiny disturbance in one small corner of it - and a very recent one. Yet the Universe is very large and very old because we are here to say it is. And yet, of course, we all know perfectly well that it is what it is whether we are here or not."