The fine-tuning argument and the analogy of the puddle

The analogy of the thoughtful puddle.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• fine-tuning
• argument
• puddle
• analogy
• Douglas
• Adams
• life
• adapt

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer Okay, no problem. Yes, get ready for your tests. Best of luck!

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

I apologize; I shouldn't have gotten into a discussion such as this, at this time. Once I'm through with exams in a week or so, I will be sure to continue this with a discussion of the model's testability, RNA world indication such as ARS configuration, beneficial mutation such as TRIM5α R332Q, and the various molecular phylogenetic evidences for common ancestry such as ERV distribution and LTR discontinuity, Alu distribution, the conservation of transposon insertion order, etc.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer Evolution requires millions of years. And, assuming lots of small adaptations equal to a mutations is false. Which option did you pick? The video is directly linked to concept of God or no God, so the question is very relevant.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer I believe 'Darwin's Tree of Life' confuses a common ancestor with a common designer. Without DNA, there is no life. Without life, there is no natural selection. So, you cannot explain the very thing, namely DNA, without presuming its existence. Second, there is no evidence for such claims of evolution. Third, is evolution repeatable and observable? And, I do not mean adaptations of moths or viruses. Those are not mutations. Mutations are always harmful and cause less info.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer Well, it is a metaphysical issue more than a scientific issue. Science must be repeatable and observable. The most basic metaphysical axiom is that 'being comes from being' and 'non-being has no causality or potentiality'. What is acausal? Can you give an example? And, infinities do not exist in reality. I believe Dr. Hilbert's Hotel explains it quite well.

[SecularAstronomer]

As for common ancestry, I argue that molecular phylogenetic data quite firmly establishes it as an accurate description of reality.

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

Firstly, I must again stress that this is irrelevant to the analogy in this video. Secondly, there are many possibilities; that which later formed the modern universe (usually thought of as a singularity) either came into being, or never did. If it came into being, it was either causal or acausal; same with the initial expansion. If either were causal, it could have been a mind (a deity), or some other unknown cause.

I’m unwilling to bend a question mark into an exclamation point.

[6630mcdo]

@SecularAstronomer You need to look at the properties and probabilities of life. 1) Universe came from nothing without cause 2) Universe always existed 3) God created the universe. Which option?

[SecularAstronomer]

The capacity of populations of organisms to respond to environmental pressures by changing in such a way that optimizes persistence in those environments is what shows that proposition to be false. The analogous portion of the perplexed puddle example is the capacity of a puddle to change in such a way that its shape corresponds to that of its container.

[SecularAstronomer]

@6630mcdo

You have (as others have) mistakenly assumed that I intend the analogy to address the proposition of a being-designed universe (properties of the universe itself). As I have said repeatedly to others, I did not.

What I do intend it to address is the proposition that life (specifically) must have been being-designed, by virtue of its correspondence to the properties of this particular planet.