It’s an interesting question which gives rise to a responding question: How do those people know that some other type of universe should exist?
The photo is made up of 411 individual photos, and spans about 40,000 light years through space. If you were to download it to your computer it would be near the equivalent of downloading a fully fledged, 3 hour, high definition movie to your hard drive, since the photo is 4.3 gigabytes of hard drive space. Remember, it’s just a photograph. It’s currently the sharpest picture ever taken of the Andromeda galaxy, and if you wanted to show the whole thing on a screen, you’d need about 600 HD TV’s to fit the whole picture.
If you visit the SpaceTelescope.org you can enjoy zooming in and out of the photo without downloading it to your computer.
[Now that last sounds like a good idea.]
To understand why we never hear any more about how Americans have landed on the moon but only about pointless, possibly tax-funded, controversies about other universes, see fingertips.
Hat tip: Daniel Quinones
I should think big universes are better than small ones. Plenty of space for expansion, for seeking out new life and new civilizations, for boldly going, etc….
Some people ask why we live in such a big universe?
We were born.
“How do those people know that some other type of universe should exist?”
Maybe because the fact that our Universe DOES exist in the first place is impossibly unlikely. The guys/gals who understand the maths of fine tuning, the physicists and cosmologists, understand the impossibility of this one Universe emerging.
Not only SHOULD there be some other kind of universes, there HAS to be other ones out there. Trillions raised to the trillions of other universes. There has to be. Please, please, there has to be.
And not only is the Universe impossibly fine tuned, recent discoveries indicate the Earth is near the center. Please, please, no. Don’t add insult to injury.
http://mobile.extremetech.com/.....gle.com%2F
The recently discovered cosmological “Axis of Evil” also points towards Earth. A fined tuned Universe is bad enough without Earth being in a special place.
Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8469673/
Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head – Daniel Bakken – January 26, 2015
Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn’t arisen in Earth’s habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks “So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?” Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93011.html
The bible implies why the universe is so big.
Its the original eternity. The original home for breeding mankind.
If we never died, plan one, then today the pop would be some 40 billion. In a million years it would be a trillion or so.
SO we need elbow room. The universe is simply undeveloped real estate.
It was for man. No one else out there.
It is eternity.
Universe is for galaxies, not for us. We live on Earth , comparable to dust mote (when compared to the observable universe) in Sunbeam.
as to “Universe is for galaxies, not for us.”
Actually, contrary to what you believe, the earth, and people on it, are not nearly as insignificant as you think:
Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the multipoles were actually verified by Planck.
There was a recent video made on this ‘principle’:
Further notes:
Verse
The following site is also very interesting to the topic of ‘centrality in the universe’;
The preceding interactive graph and video points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle.
Moreover, from a slightly different angle, ‘Life’, with a capital L, is also found to be central to the universe in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very credible reconciliation to the most profound enigma in modern science. Namely the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (Quantum Electrodynamics) into a ‘Theory of Everything’:
Verse and Music:
bornagain77 @ 9
Universe is expanding rapidly. The observable universe during the period of Jesus Christ would have been far far smaller, the universe during Galileo’s period too would have been smaller, so the exponential center would be totally different than 10^4. You are implying that people in Jesus Christ period and generations after Christ were less privileged than us !!
Me_Think the exponent for how big the universe is is derived from billions of light years. Thus the effect of a few thousand years of expansion is negligible.,,, Moreover,,,
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History (to view the Cosmic microwave background radiation)– Hugh Ross – video
http://vimeo.com/31940671
also see:
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf
bornagain77 @ 11
So now you agree it can’t be exactly 10^-4? 74.3 Km/Sec/Mpc is the current expansion rate. The earlier universe was radiation dominated with a different expansion rate, so variation did exist. Again, I am just pointing out the silly notion that we are more privileged than Jesus Christ and His disciples !
It will take 2 trillion years for the light to have wavelength equal to the size of universe. Only then will our universe disappear from our view. Everyone who lives up to 2 trillion years are living at the ‘right time’ ! So don’t worry. Again, are we more privileged than Jesus Christ and His disciples? !
No Me_Think, the 10^-4 exponent is still the middle exponent now as it was then regardless of the neglible amount that the universe has expanded since the time of Christ (or even since the origin of humanity). Thus my comment that the exponent for the human egg and human observation is directly in the exponential middle of sizes remains correct regardless of the fact that the distance for how big the observable universe is is several thousand years bigger than it was then.
Moreover as pointed out previously, the anthropic inequality prevents ANY advanced civilization from living 2 trillions years into the future:
At least one scientist is far more pessimistic about the ‘natural’ future lifespan of the human race than 20,000 years:
As far as the universe itself, star formation is far past its peak and the universe will not even have any habitable stars 2 trillion years into the future
Here is Krauss’s article on the subject:
At the 38:10 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Huterer speaks of the ‘why right now? coincidence problem’ for dark matter and visible matter:
As well, the fine-tuning of the expansion of the universe, by itself, is one of the most powerful evidences of Design:
Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by ‘Dark Energy’, that speak of God ‘Stretching out the Heavens’; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:
Music:
You don’t seem to understand what 74.3 Km/Sec/Mpc means. It means that a galaxy at 1 Megaparsec distance (3.26 Light years) is moving away at speed of 74.3 Km per second. In an hour that galaxy will be 267480 Km away [
3600 x 74.3]. How do you say that the observable universe is the same in Jesus Christ time and our time (even if we take the expansion rate to be less during Christ’s time)?. You seem to also suggest that Gorilla- which has sight equal to humans is also a privileged species!No. I hope not! Our Sun would burn off in 5 to 6 billion years, but your claim that we are at a privileged moment to observe CMBR is ridiculous because we do have millions of years of Human generation left. Even if manage to live just another 1000 years, we still can’t claim ‘this’ is the right moment. If the ‘right moment’ stretches for 1000 years and more, it is not the right moment, it is the ‘right’ 1000 years.
Me_Think you state:
There are several nuances in play here. First I am talking about the OBSERVABLE diameter of the universe. I am not talking about the expansion rate of the universe when I state we are currently in the exponential middle of possible sizes. Please re-read what I originally said (it is different from what you originally copy and pasted). 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang approximately 14 billion years ago, which is the diameter of the (present) universe.
Moreover, it is an approximation. I rounded up just a bit from 8.8 x 10^26 meters to arrive at 10^27 meters. To be exact I would have referenced the following
and would have also referenced this
and would have also referenced this
The effect of ‘being in the exponential middle’ is most clearly ‘felt’ in the following exponential graph. Where, when the interactive bar is placed right in the middle of the exponential graph, the human egg and human visual acuity are presented:
You can gripe that that is not really in the exact, precise, exponential middle if you want, but as we use to say in the military, it is certainly close enough for government work!
And it is certainly closer to being in the exponential middle than the approximation that was made in this following 2006 book which was titled to reflect the surprising finding of ‘exponential centrality’ for humans:
There are more nuances in play, but I thought I would clear that up first.
You also made a quip about Gorillas. If Gorillas could build fires your criticism might hold up to scrutiny. I suggest you read the Robin Collins link I cited in post 8 so as to better understand the ‘discoverability/livability optimality thesis’, and the discovery that was made using that thesis. There is also a video on the topic. Search Robin Collins Greer/Heard forum. That should get you there.
bornagain77 @ 15
People during Christ’s time could observe nothing more than the Troposphere, and people during Galileo’s time-with his optic telescope- could see no more than low res moon and Jupiter- that was their observable universe. Aren’t you just supporting my point that we are more privileged than People during Christ’s period ?
Well, you were the one who said:
(as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!).
We were talking about how human sight is fine-tuned to see the ‘not just nearly’ exponential center of Planck length and Universe size, not about fire making.
Methink, the exponential scale of the universe was not appreciably different in Christ’s time. Just because they did not have accurate knowledge of the scale of the universe matters not one wit as to what the scale actually was and is. Atheistic materialists are the ones who were/are gung-ho to tell everyone that we have no significance whatsoever in the universe. That the exponential scale of the universe would reveal a ‘central position’ for both human sight and the human egg is something that is unexpected on the atheistic premise of ‘blind, pitiless, indifference’. Thus this evidence, along with the lines other evidences I presented, constitutes ‘surprising’ evidence against that atheistic premise. That you, as an atheist, would try to downplay it is not surprising. Yet, if you were honest, as I hoped that you might be, you would have admitted that it is a very interesting finding. ,,, That you would squabble over the ‘not just nearly’ term is, in my book, to argue over minor semantics. As the graph itself shows, when the cursor is placed exactly in the center of the exponential graph then human vision and the human egg are indeed in exactly the exponential middle of the graph.
Perhaps I will qualify the ‘not nearly’ phrase in my notes with a ‘as far as the exponential graph itself is concerned’ caveat so as to not upset mathematical purists.
But, the overall point stands. It is a surprising finding that, given atheistic premises, should not be as it is.
You again confused a few issues in your last statement. Thus I suggest to you again that you read the Collins paper I cited in post 8 so as to understand what you are attempting to criticize and so as to properly keep the issues in order. It does not reflect well on you to confuse issues.
bornagain77: 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters
So right in the middle is within four magnitudes by your estimation. Apparently, the dust mite is the ‘center of the universe’.
In the time of Newton, it was thought that stars were at a distance of about 3e15 meters, and the smallest observable objects seen in microscopes were about 1e-6 meters. The ‘middle’ of that is about 5e4, about the same in terms of magnitude.
“So right in the middle is within four magnitudes by your estimation.(?)”
And exactly why do you presuppose that 10^0 meters should have been found to be at the ‘privileged’ center in the exponential scale?
Moreover, your dust mite example comes in at 10^-3.5 not 10^-4
Scale Of The Universe – exponential graph
http://htwins.net/scale2/?bordercolor=white
You would have done better with tardigrades to try to counter the surprising finding:
Meet tardigrades (commonly known as water bears or moss piglets), one of the most interesting species on the planet. They are not afraid of extreme high and low temperatures, pressure and radiation. Boiled water and liquid helium doesn’t scare them. Tardigrades can survive almost a decade without water. And they are the only animals known to be able to survive the vacuum of space. And yes, they are very tiny. The biggest adults may reach a body length of 1.5 mm, the smallest below 0.1 mm.
http://www.thefunlearning.com/.....rades.html
The water bear (tardigrade), the most extreme animal on our planet – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUC0_HjNFBs
Moreover, given that atheists can’t even begin to give a coherent explanation for life and consciousness in the first place, I find the fact that both the human egg and ‘conscious observation’ is at 10^-4 to be ‘surprising’.
What is not surprising is that you as an atheist would pretend it does not matter.
bornagain77: Moreover, your dust mite example comes in at 10^-3.5 not 10^-4
Apparently, rat mites are the ‘center of the universe’.
bornagain77: (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters
Apparently, rat zygotes are the ‘center of the universe’.
Much better try Zachriel,
But you fail on visual acuity:
Depth of focus: Combined with poor visual acuity, rats have an enormous depth of focus. Depth of focus is the range of distances at which an object is in equivalent focus for an unaccomodated eye. In humans, the depth of focus is from 2.3 meters to infinity (Campbell 1957). In rats, the depth of focus is from 7 centimeters to infinity (Powers and Green 1978), which may be due to the small size of the rat’s eye and its poor acuity (Green et al. 1980).
http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatVision.htm
and you fail on other humorous fronts but lets take it one step at a time shall we?
bornagain77: In humans, the depth of focus is from 2.3 meters to infinity (Campbell 1957).
But in human and rat zygotes, which are at the ‘center’ of your universe, not quite that good. Adult rats appear to be better than adult humans in terms of depth of focus. Not sure your point, but even with your human visual acuity, you envision a Pollyanna world.
Zachriel,,, visual acuity is the measure we are talking about, i.e. .1 mm! Please try to pay attention:
The rat’s world is very blurry. Visual acuity is measured in cycles per degree (cpd), a measurement of the number of lines that can be seen as distinct within a degree of the visual field. Acuity of humans is about 30 cpd, normally pigmented rats is 1 cpd, and 0.5 for albino rats (Prusky et al. 2002, 2000;
http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatVision.htm
human vision
http://www.ratbehavior.org/images/WaterLily.jpg
Normal blurry rat vision
http://www.ratbehavior.org/ima.....CBblur.jpg
You need to find a species that matches .1mm visual acuity and egg size. Good luck with that. Then we will move on to your next stumbling block.
bornagain77: The rat’s world is very blurry.
Yes, and a sparrow has better visual acuity than people. So?
bornagain77: You need to find a species that matches .1mm visual acuity and egg size.
Why do we “need” to do that?
Other great apes have comparable vision as well as comparable-sized eggs. Apparently, chimp zygotes are the ‘center of the universe’.
great apes have comparable vision as well as comparable-sized eggs.
reference please.
Not to be nit picky but I have reasonable doubts,,,
The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-ape.html
for instance:
Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system:
Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM
as well
A False Trichotomy
Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/
Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F
“Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video
https://vimeo.com/106012299
Also of interest: Glycan carbohydrate molecules are very complex molecules, rivaling DNA and proteins in terms of complexity, which are found primarily on a cell’s surface and are found to be very important for cell surface functions, such as immunity responses. Yet, are found to show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,”;
This Non Scientific Claim Regularly Appears in Evolutionary Peer Reviewed Papers – Cornelius Hunter – April 2012
Excerpt: Indeed these polysaccharides, or glycans, would become rather uncooperative with evolution. As one recent paper explained, glycans show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,” for they “occur in a discontinuous and puzzling distribution across evolutionary lineages.” This dizzying array of glycans can be (i) specific to a particular lineage, (i) similar in very distant lineages, (iii) and conspicuously absent from very restricted taxa only. In other words, the evidence is not what evolution expected.
Here is how another paper described early glycan findings:
“There is also no clear explanation for the extreme complexity and diversity of glycans that can be found on a given glycoconjugate or cell type. Based on the limited information available about the scope and distribution of this diversity among taxonomic groups, it is difficult to see clear trends or patterns consistent with different evolutionary lineages. It appears that closely related species may not necessarily share close similarities in their glycan diversity, and that more derived species may have simpler as well as more complex structures. Intraspecies diversity can also be quite extensive, often without obvious functional relevance.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....larly.html
Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules – A Whole New Level Of Information – article
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bO5txsOPde3BEPjOqcUNjL0mllfEc894LkDY5YFpJCA/edit
Moreover, Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates which are not reducible to DNA sequences:
Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA – Jonathan Wells – 2014
Excerpt: Embryo development (ontogeny) depends on developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), but dGRNs depend on pre-existing spatial anisotropies that are defined by early embryonic axes, and those axes are established long before the embryo’s dGRNs are put in place.,,,
DNA sequences do not specify the final functional forms of most membrane components. Still less does DNA specify the spatial arrangements of those components. Yet their spatial arrangements carry essential ontogenetic information. The fact that membrane patterns carry ontogenetic information that is not specified by DNA poses a problem for any theory of evolution (such as Neo-Darwinism) that attributes the origin of evolutionary novelties to changes in a genetic program—-whether at the level of DNA sequences or dGRNs.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2014.2
Chimpanzees have binocular vision, of course.
Concerning visual acuity, see Spence, Visual acuity and its relation to brightness in chimpanzee and man, Journal of Comparative Psychology 1934: “Man, chimpanzee and monkey appear to have about the same order of visual acuity.”
Chimpanzees also have trichromacy. See Grether, A comparison of human and chimpanzee spectral hue discrimination curves, Journal of Comparative Psychology 1940: “in all probability chimpanzee color vision is basically like that of man, and hence trichromatic.”
As for the size of the ovum, not needing a large yolk, in Eutheria it doesn’t vary by much more than a factor of two, and are very close in size among anthropoid apes. See Hartman, How Large is the Mammalian Egg, The Quarterly Review of Biology 1929.
Have no idea how your links added anything of relevance. In any case, acute, binocular, trichromatic vision is an inherited trait in diurnal primates, hypothesized as due to their arboreal evolution.
Apparently, chimps are the ‘center of the universe’.
Zachriel, I suspected that visual acuity was approximately the same, (although your 1940 reference is a bit dated), it would be nice to see actual cycles per degree measurements to see exactly where the acuity for each species lands.
What I doubted, (due to the information I listed 26 and 27 and you apparently did not understand due to your Darwinian blindness), is that the egg size could vary since embryonic development is shown to be unique for both chimps and humans.
Your 1929 reference on mammalian eggs did not mention ape eggs specifically and the chart was inaccessible.
This following 1961 reference does not mention apes either, but is more specific as to the incongruent variations amongst mammals than your 1929 reference is:
The sizes of mammalian eggs are by no means proportional to the sizes of the adult mammals: the horse’s egg is rather less than twice the diameter of the mouse egg and about the same size as the rabbit egg (Figs. 9 and 10). Variation in egg size is considered to be attributable largely to differences in the content of non-living yolk materials, but differences in nuclear size suggest that the amount of active cytoplasm also varies. The eggs of the placental mammals measure 60 to 180 x in diameter (vitellus alone), those of rodents occupying the lower part of the range. The egg of the field vole Microtus agrestis (Fig. 24) is the smallest mammalian egg so far recorded (Austin, 1957b). Very occasionally, ‘giant’ eggs are found, which are 30 to 40 per cent larger in diameter than normal ; these have been described in the rabbit, rat, mouse (Austin and Braden, 1954c; Austin and Walton, i960) and cotton-rat (Austin and Amoroso, 1959) (Fig. 11). The egg of the Australian native cat Dasyurus is of notably larger dimensions, namely 240 /x in diameter, but much the largest mammalian eggs are those of the oviparous monotremes, the spiny anteater Tachyglossus and the duck-billed platypus Ornithorhynchus, in which the vitellus at ovulation measures 3*5 to 4 mm. in diameter (Flynn and Hill, 1939). Sea-urchin eggs (Arbacia) are much the same size as rodent eggs, the vitellus having a mean diameter of 74 jit (Harvey, 1956). By comparison, fish eggs vary between 400 jl and 150 mm., and frog eggs between 700 fi and 10 mm. (Bcatty, 1956a). On the other hand, the egg of the bryozoan Crista is only about 18 it in diameter and the oval eggs of the parasitic worms Ascaris and Clouorchis have diameters of about 60 and 45 jit, and 28 and 14 /x, respectively. Further information on egg size is given by Hartman (1929), Boyd and Hamilton (1952), Beatty (1956a), Costello et a. (1957), Austin (1961a).
http://www.archive.org/stream/.....t_djvu.txt
Thus, from what scant evidence we have, we have evidence of discontinuity of egg sizes amongst mammals.
Perhaps you can find a better reference than my 1961 reference. I can’t seem to find a more up to date reference with more precise measurements of human eggs compared to great ape eggs. It would be interesting to nail this measurement down more precisely.
bornagain77: Your 1929 reference on mammalian eggs did not mention ape eggs specifically and the chart was inaccessible.
From Hartman 1929: “But throughout the Eutheria, the mammals above the marsupials, the egg is very uniform, with not much over a two-to-one variation in size, which holds from rat to man, from bat to horse, from mouse to elephant and whale.”
Here’s a few specific results:
Bat, 95-105
Dog, 135-145
Gibbon, 110-120
Gorilla, 130-140
Horse, 135
Human, 130-140
Mouse, 70-75
Rhesus, 110-120
Whale, 140
bornagain77: Thus, from what scant evidence we have, we have evidence of discontinuity of egg sizes amongst mammals.
From your own comment, Eutherian eggs are within a narrow range. Primates, in particular, have very similar size ova.
Zachriel, thanks. I was not able to access the chart from the link I clicked.
Thus chock one up for you. I thought there might be somewhat greater variation in egg size due to unique embryo-genesis for each species. I was wrong in my hunch.
I guess you are right, mammals of somewhat proportional sizes are the center of God’s exponential universe as far as visual acuity and egg size goes. But then again God cares for every creature! 🙂
Oh well, now for the fly in the ointment of your whole theory. You now need to just catch a monkey using numbers and language (telescopes, microscopes and such) so as to construct exponential charts of the entire universe, and to then realize that his visual acuity and egg was at the center of that exponential chart of the universe that he had just constructed. Then you would finally have proof of ‘the image of God’ also being present within monkeys and that we humans are not all that special after all! Good luck with that! 🙂 You will need it, especially given this recent paper that just came out:
Even the co-discoverer of natural selection says that the difference is ‘unbridgeable’
Wallace is in very good company
David Berlinski, in his unique style, gets this mathematical point across very clearly:
Moreover, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. this unique ability to process information that humans possess, is the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
As well, as if that was not ‘spooky enough’, due to advances in quantum mechanics, information, not material, is now found to be foundational to physical reality:
Verse and Music:
bornagain77 @ 31,
Forget monkeys, even you won’t be able to construct exponential charts and would have no idea how to control the satellites to take CMBR and analyze it to derive the size of universe. That doesn’t exclude you from being the ‘image of God’, right? Moreover men don’t have eggs. Does that mean all men are not ‘image of God?’
Me_Think, Okie Dokie, that was a bit unfair. I will settle for a monkey writing a book instead of accurately constructing an exponential chart of the entire universe, (which took the collective work of many ‘human’ geniuses over many years). 🙂
Monkey Theory Proven Wrong:
Excerpt: A group of faculty and students in the university’s media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then, they waited. At first, said researcher Mike Phillips, “the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it. “Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard,” added Phillips, who runs the university’s Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies. Eventually, monkeys Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan produced five pages of text, composed primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in — not quite literature.
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/.....051103.htm
🙂
The story of the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator Project
Excerpt: Starting with 100 virtual monkeys typing, and doubling the population every few days, it put together random strings of characters. It then checked them against the archived works of Shakespeare. Before it was scrapped, the site came up with 10^35 number of pages, all typed up. Any matches?
Not many. It matched two words, “now faire,” and a partial name from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and three words and a comma, “Let fame, that,” from Love’s Labour’s Lost. The record, achieved suitably randomly at the beginning of the site’s run in 2004, was 23 characters long, including breaks and spaces.
http://io9.com/5809583/the-sto.....or-project
Zachriel as to your claim in 28
Two minor problems. First problem, you have no actual empirical evidence that the unguided Darwinian evolution of color vision is possible:
Second problem, ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimed
Moreover, the premier paper from Darwinists explaining the supposed Darwinian evolution of the eye is a “tour de force of unverified speculation”
Since Darwinists like to believe that they are the champions of science, (although science cannot even be grounded in materialism in the first place), I was hoping for something a bit more, well, ‘scientific’ substantiating their claims that eyes can easily evolve, rather than the usual bluff and bluster we get from them.
bornagain77: First problem, you have no actual empirical evidence that the unguided Darwinian evolution of color vision is possible
Start with the nested hierarchy.
Zachriel: binocular, trichromatic vision is an inherited trait in diurnal primates, hypothesized as due to their arboreal evolution.
bornagain77: Second problem, ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimed
Heh. Arboreal, as in monkeys live in trees.
“Start with the nested hierarchy.”
No, first start with experimental evidence demonstrating that your grandiose Darwinian claims of gradualism are possible. Moreover, in regards to historical evidence, the Cambrian Explosion, and fossil record itself, demonstrates the appearance of different forms of life is very ‘un-tree’ like.
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
Casey Luskin January 29, 2015
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91141.html
‘monkeys live in trees’
Thanks for the smile, but, as usual, it does not honestly address the fact that ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimed
bornagain77: No, first start with experimental evidence
The nested hierarchy is evidence. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.
bornagain77: Thanks for the smile, but, as usual, it does not honestly address the fact that ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimed
Gee whiz. The word arboreal in the sentence refers to the environment of the posited ancestor. They lived in trees.
Zachriel, It is sad for you, and your atheistic beliefs, that you cannot produce experimental evidence demonstrating even one protein/gene arising by unguided Darwinian processes.
A skeptic of the grandiose claims of Darwinists, such as myself, realizing that without that empirical support that you need are not even in the realm of experimental science in the first place, can just sit back all day long and point out that everything else you may point to as evidence for Darwinism is just unsubstantiated conjecture without that crucial piece of substantiating experimental evidence.
Moreover, in regards to the ‘other evidence’, neither the fossil record nor genetic evidence, contrary to what you may imagine, supports your Darwinian claims for gradualism. As referenced earlier,,,
and
Not good evidence, to put it mildly, for the atheist who wants to prove he is the result of ‘blind, pitiless, indifference’
bornagain77: you cannot produce experimental evidence demonstrating even one protein/gene arising by unguided Darwinian processes.
We did provide evidence. You ignored it and attempted to change the subject.
You have actual experimental evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing a protein/gene???
Well by golly, don’t be bashful, break that experimental puppy out and lets take a gander! We will shut those nasty ID proponents, such as Dr. Behe, down yet (cue evil laugh)
You don’t mind if I point out that Darwinists have a extremely difficult time explaining protein binding sites much less proteins do you?
Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
http://www.discovery.org/a/9461
bornagain77: You have actual experimental evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing a protein/gene???
While the evidence for common descent is not sufficient, it is necessarily, and that evidence starts with the nested hierarchy.
Zachriel, man don’t back off now dude with that common descent mumbo-jumbo! They always see through that anyway. We will finally put those delusional ID fanatics in their place with actual empirical evidence! Break out that snazzy new protein/gene protein that you bragging about! I’m excited! I especially want to show that Behe character up as much damage as he has done undermining atheistic claims of ‘blind, pitiless, indifference’. Who does he think he is challenging such sacred nihilistic beliefs? 🙂