Pushing KDE's Science: Evolution Simulation

Ever dreamed of a nice piece of software that actually tries to simulate the evolution of an universe? Ever thought it would be possible? Now after a long time of planning and writing of some source code a small group of developers goes public with their innovative project: the G System.

The G System, often simply called "G", is an effort to create exactly this: simulation of evolution. This is both, a scientific exercise and a virtual reality where many "users" can participate in an ever changing, realistic and ... evolving universe.

The goal is a virtual reality which can be experienced by users as a realistic world and as a place for scientific development with a goal of creating a realistic evolution simulation. The realism is not so much of physical reality but more of a realistic human - and especially life as a whole - evolution. This also means that nothing keeps us from creating space shuttles that allows for exploring a whole solar system, which can get quite fascinating ;)

Currently the system is in an early stage of development. We have come so far that we think it IS possible to create a realistic evolution simulation and now we want to "bootstrap" development. That means we are looking for contributers. If you are fascinated by the idea you probably already fit the requirements, fascination is what drives development forward. To get an overview of the technology that is covered/used by the project, this list should help: network layer for a "grid" of server systems as well as client connections, database systems, 3D client application with KDE integration, artificial intelligence and some common sense for evolution; Qt and KDE as base libraries. But this list is not complete, there also are many areas where no special knowledge is needed. And after all, everything can be learned.

At the moment a small demo application is already available, it currently shows that the core infrastructure works but doesn't provide much in terms of virtual reality. A later release will bring the system nearer to this goal and will let people enter this simulation experience.

For more information you can take a look at http://www.g-system.at (it is an international site, the .at domain was just easier to get in our case). The source code release and the API documentation are already available. Check out the page at KDE-apps.org!


Evolution has become the modern mythology. The universe did not just evolve my accident but was designed with a purpose. This list of design for evidence was taken from the http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml?main#design_in_... Reasons to believe web site.

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine “fine tuning” seems incontrovertible.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Expansion rate of the universe
9. Mass density of the universe
10. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
11. Space energy density of the universe
12. Entropy level of the universe
13. Velocity of light
14. Age of the universe
15. Uniformity of radiation
16. Homogeneity of the universe
17. Average distance between galaxies
18. Average distance between stars
19. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
20. Fine structure constant
21. Decay rate of protons
22. Ground state energy level for helium-4
23. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
24. Decay rate for beryllium-8
25. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
26. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
27. Polarity of the water molecule
28. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
29. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
30. Epoch for supernova eruptions
31. Number and types of supernova eruptions
32. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
33. Density of white dwarf binaries
34. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
35. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
36. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
37. Mass of the neutrino
38. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
39. Magnitude of big bang ripples
40. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
41. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
42. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
43. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
44. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
45. Density of quasars
46. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
47. relative abundances of different exotic mass particle

By Craig B at Tue, 2004/07/27 - 5:00am

It's comical how the "but it requires so many coincidences" argument causes a certain category of people to jump to the "intelligent design" conclusion. All you're taking into account are the individual phenomena --- not any higher-order relationships between them. A small set of simple rules can easily lead to a complex system. Until you discover the higher-order relationships and thus the underlying rules, you cannot use complexity as an argument for intelligent creation. Now, science does not currently have knowledge of these rules, so it cannot definitively say that intelligent creation is not involved (using a scientific argument --- various philosophical arguments exists on both sides) but at the same time, it cannot definitively say that intelligent creation *is* involved.

By Rayiner Hashem at Tue, 2004/07/27 - 5:00am

You make the mistake of assuming you are important.

If, as you say, "For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values" this also means that they are needed for that observation to be possible. This means they are not there by chance but by necessity, which deflates the whole argument.

If you could prove that a much simpler universe was not only much more likely than our current but could also house physical life, then your argument would hold water. Then, and only then, would our existence be "surprising".

This is kinda off topic anyway...

By teatime at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Sure but given the size of the galaxy/universe/big-bang space with the possibility of your various variables to vary in other areas, there will be no one there to observe them (or if there is we have not had the experience of communicating with them yet and even if we could they may not experience reality as most of us do - or worse they may bot have any deities to believe in or they may try to convert us to their bushy tailed, all smelling, blue skinned, light consuming, one eyed god).

By CPH at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Cut this guy some slack. He's stuck in Crawford while the convention is going on, and he's clearly bored.

By ac at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Haha, yeah, keep trying to convince yourself.

I suggest you at least read some Carl Sagan, it should be simple enough for you to follow.

By Wisdom at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

While we're at the writerly recommendations, might I suggest that you check out some Dostoevsky?

By T. Middleton at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Design and the Anthropic Principle
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.


Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe.

related articles:

* Evidence for Design of the Cosmos
* New Astronomical Proofs for the Existence of God
* Quantum Mechanics, a Modern Goliath
* Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible

Cosmic Connection

Now that the limits and parameters of the universe can be calculated, and some even directly measured, astronomers and physicists have begun to recognize a connection between these limits and parameters and the existence of life. It is impossible to imagine a universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the fundamental parameters of the universe is different, even slightly so, in one way or another.

From this recognition arises the anthropic principle—everything about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible and sustaining it. The first popularizer of the principle American physicist John Wheeler, describes it in this way, "A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world."1

Of course, design in the natural world has been acknowledged since the beginning of recorded history. Divine design is the message of each of the several hundred creation accounts that form the basis of the world's religions.2, 3 The idea that the natural world was designed especially for mankind is the very bedrock of the Greek, as well as of the Judeo-Christian world view. Western philosophers of the post-Roman era went so far as to formalize a discipline called teleology—the study of the evidence for overall design and purpose in nature. Teleology attracted such luminaries as Augustine, Maimonides, Aquinas, Newton and Paley, all of whom gave it much of their life's work.

Dirac and Dicke's Coincidences

One of the first to recognize that design may also apply to the gross features of the universe was American physicist Robert Dicke. In 1961 he noted that life is possible in the universe only because of the special relationships among certain cosmological parameters4 (relationships researched by British physicist Paul Dirac twenty-four years earlier5).

Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) in the universe is the square of the gravitational constant as well as the square of the age of the universe (both expressed as dimensionless numbers). Dicke discerned that with a slight change in either of these relationships life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow range of values of the gravitational constant.

The Universe as a Fit Habitat

In recent years these and other parameters for the universe have been more sharply defined and analyzed. Now, nearly two dozen coincidences evincing design have been acknowledged:

1. The gravitational coupling constant—i.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that.

On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist.

2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.

If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.a

3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction:

neutron à proton + electron + neutrino

The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible.

A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos would pass through a supernova's envelop without disturbing it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae.

4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible.

5. The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of (he orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. if the electron to proton mass ratio were slightly larger or slightly smaller, again, molecules would not form, and life would be impossible.

6. The age of the universe governs what kinds of stars exist. It takes about three billion years for the first stars to form. It takes another ten or twelve billion years for supernovae to spew out enough heavy elements to make possible stars like our sun, stars capable of spawning rocky planets. Yet another few billion years is necessary for solar-type stars to stabilize sufficiently to support advanced life on any of its planets. Hence, if the universe were just a couple of billion years younger, no environment suitable for life would exist. However, if the universe were about ten (or more) billion years older than it is, there would be no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of a galaxy. In other words, the window of time during which life is possible in the universe is relatively narrow.

7. The expansion rate of the universe determines what kinds of stars, if any, form in the universe. If the rate of expansion were slightly less, the whole universe would have recollapsed before any solar-type stars could have settled into a stable burning phase. If the universe were expanding slightly more rapidly, no galaxies (and hence no stars) would condense from the general expansion. How critical is this expansion rate? According to Alan Guth,6 it must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055. Guth, however, suggests that his inflationary model, given certain values for the four fundamental forces of physics, may provide a natural explanation for the critical expansion rate.

8. The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the Systems into stars Either way the universe would be devoid of stars and, thus, of life. (Some models for the universe relate this coincidence to a dependence of entropy upon the gravitational coupling constant.7, 8.)

9. The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines how much nuclear burning takes place as the universe cools from the hot big bang. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in Stars. This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet.

On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible.

10. The uniformity of the universe determines its stellar components. Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. Such uniformity is considered to arise most probably from a brief period of inflationary expansion near the time of the origin of the universe. If the inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space.

On the other hand, if the universe were smoothed beyond this degree, stars, star clusters, and galaxies may never have formed at all. Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life.

11. The stability of the proton affects the quantity of matter in the universe and also the radiation level as it pertains to higher life forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency of other particles (called bosons) quarks decay into antiquarks, pions, and positive electrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years.b If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large animals and man would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation.

On the other hand, if the proton were more stable (less easily formed and less likely to decay), less matter would have emerged from events occurring in the first split second of the universe's existence. There would be insufficient matter in the universe for life to be possible.

12. The fine structure constants relate directly to each of the four fundamental forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). Compared to the coupling constants, the fine structure constants typically yield stricter design constraints for the universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure constant affects the opacity of stellar material. (Opacity is the degree to which a material permits radiant energy to pass through). In star formation, gravity pulls material together while thermal motions tend to pull it apart. An increase in the opacity of this material will limit the effect of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of material will be able to overcome the resistance of the thermal motions. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, all stars would be less than 0.7 times the mass of the sun. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly smaller, all stars would be more than 1.8 times the mass of the sun.

13. The velocity of light can be expressed in a variety of ways as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Hence, in the case of this constant, too, the slightest change, up or down, would negate any possibility for life in the universe.

14. The 8Be, 12C, and 16O nuclear energy levels affect the manufacture and abundance of elements essential to life. Atomic nuclei exist in various discrete energy levels. A transition from one level to another occurs through the emission or capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the two levels. The first coincidence here is that 8Be decays in just 10-15 seconds. Because 8Be is so highly unstable, it slows down the fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions would result. Such explosions would prevent the formation of many heavy elements essential for life. On the other hand, if 8Be were even more unstable, element production beyond 8Be would not occur.

The second coincidence is that 12C happens to have a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for 8Be and 4He. Anything other than this precise nuclear energy level for 12C would guarantee insufficient carbon production for life.

The third coincidence is that 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."10

15. The distance between stars affects the orbits and even the existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, the gravitational interaction between stars would be so strong as to destabilize planetary orbits. this destabilization would create extreme temperature variations on the planet. If this distance were slightly larger, the heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae would be so thinly distributed that rocky planets like earth would never form. The average distance between stars is just right to make possible a planetary system such as our own.

16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature conditions on surrounding planets. Small stars, like the sun, settle into a stable burning phase once the hydrogen fusion process ignites within their core. However, during this stable burning phase such stars undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity. This gradual increase is perfectly suitable for the gradual introduction of life forms, in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet. If the rate of increase were slightly greater, a runaway green house effectc would be fell sometime between the introduction of the primitive and the introduction of the advanced life forms. If the rate of increase were slightly smaller, a runaway freezingd of the oceans and lakes would occur. Either way, the planet's temperature would become too extreme for advanced life or even for the long-term survival of primitive life.

This list of sensitive constants is by no means complete. And yet it demonstrates why a growing number of physicists and astronomers have become convinced that the universe was not only divinely brought into existence but also divinely designed. American astronomer George Greenstein expresses his thoughts:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?11

The Earth as a Fit Habitat

It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The earth itself reveals such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovsky were among the first astronomers to concede this point when they attempted to estimate the number planets in the universe with environments favorable for the support of life. In the early 1960's they recognized that only a certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star would provide the necessary conditions for life.12 On this basis they made some rather optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example, claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet upon which advanced life resides.13

While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other significant factors. A sample of parameters sensitive for the support of life on a planet are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system14 - 31

The following parameters cannot exceed certain limits without disturbing the earth's capacity to support life. Some of these parameters are more narrowly confining than others. For example, the first parameter would eliminate only half the stars from candidacy for life-supporting Systems, whereas parameters five, seven, and eight would each eliminate more than ninety-nine in a hundred star-planet systems. Not only must the parameters for life support fall within a certain restrictive range, but they must remain relatively constant over time. And we know that several, such as parameters fourteen through nineteen, are subject to potentially catastrophic fluctuation. In addition to the parameters listed here, there are others, such as the eccentricity of a planet's orbit, that have an upper (or a lower) limit only.

1. number of star companions

* if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits
* if less than one: not enough heat produced for life

2. parent star birth date

* if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase
* if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements

3. parent star age

* if older: luminosity of star would not he sufficiently stable
* if younger: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently stable

4. parent star distance from center of galaxy

* if greater: not enough heavy elements to make rocky planets
* if less: stellar density and radiation would he too great

5. parent star mass

* if greater: luminosity output from the star would not be sufficiently stable
* if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance

6. parent star color

* if redder: insufficient photosynthetic response
* if bluer: insufficient photosynthetic response

7. surface gravity

* if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain huge amounts of ammonia and methane
* if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water

8. distance from parent star

* if farther away: too cool for a stable water cycle
* if closer: too warm for a stable water cycle

9. thickness of crust

* if thicker: too much oxygen would he transferred from the atmosphere to the crust
* if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great

10. rotation period

* if longer: diurnal temperature differences would he too great
* if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would he too great

11. gravitational interaction with a moon

* if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would he too severe
* if less: earth's orbital obliquity would change too much causing climatic instabilities

12. magnetic field

* if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
* if weaker: no protection from solar wind particles

13. axial tilt

* if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
* if less: surface temperature differences would he too great

14. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

* if greater: runaway ice age would develop
* if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

15. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

* if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
* if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly

16. carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere

* if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
* if less: insufficient greenhouse effect

17. ozone level in atmosphere

* if greater: surface temperatures would become too low
* if less: surface temperatures would he too high; too much uv radiation at surface

18. atmospheric electric discharge rate

* if greater: too much fire destruction
* if less: too little nitrogen fixing in the soil

19. seismic activity

* if greater: destruction of too many life-forms
* if less: nutrients on ocean floors would not be uplifted

About a dozen other parameters, such as atmospheric chemical composition, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the nineteen listed in Table 1 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining life. Considering that the universe contains only about a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,e we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.f No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil14 and others have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth. It seems abundantly clear that the earth, too, in addition to the universe, has experienced divine design.

Man the Creator?

The growing evidence of design would seem to provide further convincing support for the belief that the Creator-God of the Bible formed the universe and the earth. Even Paul Davies concedes that "the impression of design is overwhelming."32 There must exist a designer. Yet, for whatever reasons, a few astrophysicists still battle the conclusion. Perhaps the designer is not God. But, if the designer is not God, who is? The alternative, some suggest, is man himself.

The evidence proffered for man as the creator comes from an analogy to delayed choice experiments in quantum mechanics. In such experiments it appears that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particle there is an associated wave. This wave represents the probability of finding the particle at a particular point in space. Before the particle is detected there is no specific knowledge of its location—only a probability of where it might be. But, once the particle has been detected, its exact location is known. in this sense, the act of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle. What is true for a quantum particle, they continue, may be true for the universe at large.

American physicist John Wheeler sees the universe as a gigantic feed-back loop.

The Universe [capitalized in the original] starts small at the big bang, grows in size, gives rise to life and observers and observing equipment. The observing equipment, in turn, through the elementary quantum processes that terminate on it, takes part in giving tangible "reality" to events that occurred long before there was any life anywhere.33

In other words, the universe creates man, but man through his observations of the universe brings the universe into real existence. George Greenstein is more direct in positing that "the universe brought forth life in order to exist ... that the very cosmos does not exist unless observed."34 Here we find a reflection of the question debated in freshmen philosophy classes across the land:

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it or hear it, does it really fall?

Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential or possibility of behaving either as particles or waves, it is impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position and the momentum of a quantum entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). By choosing to determine the position of the entity the human observer has thereby lost information about its momentum.

It is not that the observer gives "reality" to the entity, but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality of the entity he wishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the principle of causality, but simply that the causality is hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact.g

This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one defect in but one version of the new "observer-as-creator" propositions derived from quantum physics. Some other flaws are summarized here:

Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not macro, systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe at large.

The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). A multi-billion year time separation far from fits the picture.

The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we see any traces of a reversal beyond the scope of our observations. Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human activity now somehow can affect events billions of years in the past is nothing short of absurd.

Intelligence, or personality, is not a factor in the observation of quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are perfectly capable of performing observations.

Both relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, now established beyond reasonable question by experimental evidence,37 state that the correct description of nature is that in which the human observer is irrelevant.

Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support the notion that man created his universe.

Universe Becoming God?

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, British astronomer John Barrow and American mathematical physicist Frank Tipler,38 begin by reviewing evidences for design of the universe, then go on to address several radical versions of the anthropic principle, including Wheeler's feed-back loop connection between mankind and the universe. Referring to such theories as PAP (participatory anthropic principle), they propose, instead, FAP (final anthropic principle).

In their FAP, the life that is now in the universe (and, according to PAP, created the universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches a state of totality that they call the Omega Point. At the Omega Point

Life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know.39

In a footnote they declare that "the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!"40 Let me translate: the universe created man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man in the end will become the Almighty transcendent Creator. Martin Gardner gives this evaluation of their idea:

What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.41

In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator, cosmologists seem to be resorting to more and more absurd alternatives. An exhortation from the Bible is appropriate, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."42

Insufficient Universe

It is clear that man is too limited to have created the universe. But, it is also evident that the universe is too limited to have created man. The universe contains no more than 1080 baryonsh and has been in existence for no more than 1018 seconds.

Compared to the inorganic systems comprising the universe, biological systems are enormously complex. The genome (complete set of chromosomes necessary for reproduction) of an E. coli bacterium has the equivalent of about two million nucleotides. A single human cell contains the equivalent of about six billion nucleotides. Moreover, unlike inorganic systems, the sequence in which the individual components are assembled is critical for the survival of biological systems. Also, only amino acids with left handed configurations can be used in protein synthesis, the amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme, and multiple special enzymes (enzymes themselves are enormously complex sequence-critical molecules) are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end.

The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.i These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.43-58

Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with one another, that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. The only explanation left to us to tell how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information.

An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life.


a. The strong nuclear force is actually much more delicately balanced. An increase as small as two percent means that protons would never form from quarks (particles that form the building blocks of baryons and mesons). A similar decrease means that certain heavy elements essential for life would be unstable.

b. Direct observations of proton decay have yet to be confirmed. Experiments simply reveal that the average proton lifetime must exceed 1032 years.9 However, if the average proton lifetime exceeds about 1034 years, than there would be no physical means for generating the matter that is observed in the universe.

c. An example of the greenhouse effect is a locked car parked in the sun. Visible light from the sun passes easily through the windows of the car, is absorbed by the interior, and reradiated as infrared light. But, the windows will not permit the passage of infrared radiation. Hence, heat accumulates in the car's interior. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like the windows of a car. The early earth had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. However, the first plants extracted this carbon dioxide and released oxygen. Hence, the increase in the sun's luminosity was balanced off by the decrease in the greenhouse effect caused by the lessened amount of carbon dioxide In the atmosphere.

d. A runaway freezing would occur because snow and ice reflect better than other materials on the surface of the earth. Less solar energy is absorbed thereby lowering the surface temperature which in turn creates more snow and ice.

e. The average number of planets per star is still largely unknown. The latest research suggests that only bachelor stars with characteristics similar to those of the sun may possess planets. Regardless, all researchers agree that the figure is certainly much less than one planet per star.

f. The assumption is that all life is based on carbon. Silicon and boron at one time were considered candidates for alternate life chemistries. However, silicon can sustain amino acid chains no more than a hundred such molecules long. Boron allows a little more complexity but has the disadvantage of not being very abundant in the universe.

g. One can easily get the impression from the physics literature that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only accepted philosophical explanation of what is going on in the micro world. According to this school of thought, "1) There is no reality in the absence of observation; 2) Observation creates reality." In addition to the Copenhagen interpretation physicist Nick Herbert outlines and critiques six different philosophical models for interpreting quantum events.35 Physicist and theologian Stanley Jaki outlines yet an eighth model.36 While a clear philosophical understanding of quantum reality is not yet agreed upon. physicists do agree on the results one expects from quantum events.

h. Baryons are protons and other fundamental particles, such as neutrons, that decay into protons.

i. A common rebuttal is that not all amino acids in organic molecules must be strictly sequenced. One can destroy or randomly replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function of the molecule. This is vital since life necessarily exists in a sequence—disrupting radiation environment. However, this is equivalent to writing a computer program that will tolerate the destruction of 1 statement of code out of 1001. In other words, this error-handling ability of organic molecules constitutes a far more unlikely occurrence than strictly sequenced molecules.

By Craig B at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

I don't know why I answer to such piece of sh.. but here you are: there are some people who beleive in the multiple universe "theory". I put theory between quotes, because this "theory" has the same amount of proof that God exist, that is to say none.

What they beleive is that there is a very,very huge number of universe which have different physical properties, in some of these universe life is not possible, in some other life is possible.

How can one choose between the "multiple universe" beleif and your "intelligent design" belief?
Answer: nobody can!

So my sceptic argument is: nobody has the slightest clue of why the universe is the way it is, maybe science will help in the future, maybe not, but saying that the universe has been created by something called God (which God(s) by the way?) does nothing to answer the question!

By renox at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

I don't know why I answer to such piece of sh.. but here you are: there are some people who beleive in the multiple universe "theory". I put theory between quotes, because this "theory" has the same amount of proof that God exist, that is to say none.

What they beleive is that there is a very,very huge number of universe which have different physical properties, in some of these universe life is not possible, in some other life is possible.

How can one choose between the "multiple universe" beleif and your "intelligent design" belief?
Answer: nobody can!

So my sceptic argument is: nobody has the slightest clue of why the universe is the way it is, maybe science will help in the future, maybe not, but saying that the universe has been created by something called God (which God(s) by the way?) does nothing to answer the question!

And if the reason why the universe is so 'nice' is that it has been created by something called God, who has created God?


By renox at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

don't be so goddamned ignorant there's nothing arbitrary about GOD. you expect'em to play pickaboo behind clouds and shit like that to stoop to your fuckin ignorant level sacks of shit bastard philosophers.

By laffy at Tue, 2005/11/08 - 6:00am

The point is more to try to develop the mathematical (codable) concept of "evolution". A "life" who could evoluate by itself.
Finding the piece of code that will auto-modify itself to gain always more stability is fesable. The "laws" (constants) for this stability and the "evolutioning" code is what we can play with.

From this point, only the information storage and processing speed counts.

If the human system that you are presently exist, why it couldnt have been created by a luck? You can't reject this argument. But I agree it may be easier to believe a god created us.
Since we dont know yet, choosing one idea to absolutly beleive in is kinda pretentious.

How much uncertainty can you live with?

By Pierre Delagrave at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

> The point is more to try to develop the mathematical (codable) concept
> of "evolution". A "life" who could evoluate by itself.
> Finding the piece of code that will auto-modify itself to gain always
> more stability is fesable. The "laws" (constants) for this stability and
> the "evolutioning" code is what we can play with.

I think this first paragraph does put things in a correct scope, that's what the system is essentially about. But also see below.

> If the human system that you are presenting exists,
> why it couldnt have been created by a luck?
> You can't reject this argument. But I agree it may be
> easier to believe a god created us.
> Since we dont know yet, choosing one idea
> to absolutly beleive in is kinda pretentious.

Although the resulting system will be a mathematical concept (since it's the only thing you can really "code" as you said), I think the way that leads to this mathematical (or "scientific") conception is important.

And this is where Philosophy/Mythology/Religion (whatever you will call it) meets science. So in my opinion one has to form a complete and logical concept about the WHOLE thing of evolution/creation. You won't get to this by only tracking one approach - either the scientific part, in it's current state, or the mythological part (also in it's current state). You have to merge these areas (might look difficult these days).

A main problem is that both these areas quite exclude the other area. And this is exactly the reason why they won't be able to find solutions "alone".

So, to respond to another post as well, neither "religious" nor "scientific" postings are off topic here. This system would never work if one or the other part would be ignored.

The last two paragraphs are important when working on the system(!).

I have thought about such concept for a long long time (I haven't coded much during the last two years, but at least I spent have of my internal CPU power on thinking about this). The result was, that all manifestations in a universe (IMHO!!) can be reduced to a VERY slim mathematical concept. This of course requires a high level of abstraction, which is reached in the core system (if you fetch the source release you can take a look). But without knowing how this system can be used or what was intended with it, it will be difficult to understand it. Of course this system is still by no means finished, but I think it has reached a state where I can say that it will do the trick. And that's why I decided we should release because I think it won't be losing itself in nirvana. Also please don't ask me now "and how CAN the system be used/understood"... this is part of the "G Internals" document which is also included in the release. This document is a work in progress and I think it will reach a good length (300 pages?) before it explains the whole stuff very well. Once understood I think the concept can again be abstracted to a slim system by the reader.

By Raphael Langerhorst at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

just a note: I don't claim any of the knowledge my own. Talks with personal friends that are already involved in the project, books, a good intuition (for which I'm truly grateful), own life experience and a couple of other things all contributed to this.

By Raphael Langerhorst at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Code that will auto-modify itself to gain an advantage... that's how it started. And then they became autonomous and took over the world. I suggest you read Dan Simmons' Hyperion/Endymion series for an interesting take on this! ;-)

By Kavau at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Let's turn this whole thread into an off-topic discussion about religion. Seems like a great idea.

By anon at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

HEY, did you read the news title?
It says: pushing KDE's science: Evolution Simulation

If you dosent understand why people are posting some philosophical content, then complain about the whole news being off-topic.

By anon at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

"...turn this whole thread into an off-topic discussion about religion..."
Ok, let's say I decide to create a program that simulates the wonderful creation of God and attempt to post a news article on KDE. I probably wouldn't even be able to get it on the news site. If I did, I would have people bashing me all over. I would probably even have an article written about me on Slashdot. What I'm saying is that if you post something, expect criticism to come, good or bad.

By rballer at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Evolution comes down to "things that keep existing, keep existing" I find it amusing that people have religious objection to that. If KSameGame doesn't allow you to click on the yellow balls, is it then due to divine intervention that you end up with a lot of yellow balls at the end of the game?

By Waldo Bastian at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

I believe the general Christian "religious objection" to Evolution comes from the Bible's account of Creation, where God said that each species was to "bring forth after its own kind". This would contradict the Evolutionary Theory that one species evolves into another species (which has never been scientifically observed, nor corroborated through the fossil records). Most Christians would have no "religious objection" to species adapting to their environment or to the notion of survival of the fittest (which have both been scientifically observed).

Also to most Christians it is extremely important that God create man, because that would mean that we have a purpose or reason for existing (as defined by the one that created man), just as the G-System was conceived and is being developed for a purpose which it's designer states as being a simulation of evolution. Although considering how much "intelligent design" is going into creating this project, its would be better states as a simulation of the creation of code that can learn and adapt to its environment.

Anyone who is interested in knowing the purpose or meaning of life from a Christian perspective, feel free to contact me using the name below at cheerful dot com.


By David K at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

I'm not sure if "species" is the right word, but you probably know what I mean. :-)


By David K at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

I guess species is the correct word using the preeminent definition; The Biological Species Concept (BSC), which defines a species as a reproductive community.

"The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as
'... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.'"

By David K at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

If you are using that definition, then it not only is suggested by the fossil record (it can´t be exactly shown, since how do you know what set of bones can interbreed with another?), but it has been directly observed about a dozen times in the last 100 years.

Yes, **observerd**, as in these things´ parents used to be able to interbreed but now they can´t.

By Roberto Ramos Corona at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am


By Craig B at Sat, 2004/07/31 - 5:00am

How hard is it to use google, dude?

I even said this in another post: google for "observerd instances of speciation".

If you do that, you get this nice article as the very first result:


While you probably will find the source of the article not to your taste, the quotes from actual scientific reports should give you pause about saying that speciation hasnever been observed, if you intend to be honest.

By Roberto Alsina at Mon, 2004/08/02 - 5:00am

That is a very long article, and certainly not my area of expertise, but after reading the "observed speciation" section, I do not see any real evidence to support natural evolution of one species into another. Most of the instances listed involved unnatural manipulation through hybridization or controlled reproduction. Other speciation events were not reproducible, allowing one to question the credibility of those experiments. And the article just glossed over animal speciation entirely.

But even if the full list (only a handful) of "observed speciation" events over the past 50-100 years in the article were accurate, for naturalistic evolution to work, the rate of speciation must, by nature alone, exceed the rate of extinction. Observed reality and the fossil record say it does not. In fact, extinction is accelerating (for some obvious reasons), hundreds of species go extinct ever year.


By David K at Thu, 2004/08/05 - 5:00am

Sorry, but the rate of speciation doesn't need to be higher than the rate of extinction constantly, but only as an average.

For example, when photosintetic algae released oxygen in the atmosphere, they caused the extiction of almost every orm of life, since all life, at the time was anaerobic.

So, even if you could show that the rate of speciation right now is too low, (which you can't really, since how do we know how much speciation is going on?), that proves nothing.

As for the substance of your post: it all depends on how you define species. Some of the examples given show speciation, according to the specific definitions of species used by biologists, and explained at length in the article. If you disagree with the definitions, of course, you will disagree with the experiments.

By Roberto Alsina at Thu, 2004/08/05 - 5:00am

The person who claimed that the observed speciation events were man-made didn't get past the first speciation event out of the hundreds that are listed. That fact that man can macroevolve living things is macroevolution period. The other observed instances show observed speciation in the lab and in the wild!

By observedspeciation at Mon, 2007/04/09 - 5:00am

The creation of man by God, if one chooses to believe in it, doesn't necessarily need to be a direct act in which man is created at once and in current shape and for. It may be for example by creation of a universe in which man can evolve. As far as I'm concerned such an indirect route seems, at out current level of knowledge, to be way "trickier" to execute -- as others have pointed out, minute changes in physical constraints could lead to possibly an inhabitable universe, at least by our mediocre standards.

My own way of thinking about it agrees with that of Einstein -- God doesn't throw dice. That leaves only one possibility open -- that he decides all the results -- gazillions of them every second.

What would bring as any closer to an omnipotent and fair to all God than a God who picks up the result of each and every quantum outcome? It nicely brings together the qualities already mentioned, as well as being omnipresent and affecting everything...

IMHO this way of thinking brings one to a higher level of abstraction -- all that talk at the level of species seems to be so "earthbound" and ignorant of the possibility that if we're not the only intelligent beings around...

Anyway, if things are offtopic let them be :]>

By Kuba at Tue, 2004/08/03 - 5:00am

The anthropocentric principle states that many universes may have spawned. Most are not fine tuned for human life. In these, there is no human life and no-one to observe the wonder of the universe. Only in universes tuned, by chance, for humans, do humans exist and are able to believe that they were put in this world specifically designed for them.

By Jos at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

Not to advocate "intelligent" design, but that many-universes crap doesn't hold scientific water without proof, because it requires an unjustified leap in complexity.

By island at Thu, 2004/07/29 - 5:00am

However, the weak anthropocentric principle is trivial: had the univers not bein fit for humans, we would not be having this argument. Maybe some plasma cloud would be wasting neutrinos over something similar, though.

By Roberto Alsina at Thu, 2004/07/29 - 5:00am

That's the incomplete version, which is considered by most physicsts to be a tautology, at best. But my contention is that a weak "entropic" anthropic principle is a proven fact, where the conduciveness of landscape is eqally important to both, our survival and the entropy of the universe, so that the energy that we can expend must be readily expendable, within the bounds of practical human ability, or we would not survive.

Heres the problem and, I love the beetle example, although I prefer to use a Dung Beetle in my example... ;)

"Anthropocentric is any belief that suggest that humans are the ultimate locus of value. While all beliefs are biased towards anthropocentrism because humans thought them up, this is not necessarily so. Beliefs thought up by humans are always anthropogenic but they may not be anthropocentric. Anthropocentric beliefs are different from anthropogenic beliefs in that the latter beliefs are acknowledged as emerging from humans but they do not regard humans as the sole or most important source of value. For instance, a human who believes beetles should be valued for themselves may be anthropogenic, but they aren't anthropocentric."

But a human that notes the fact that we are BETTER sh_t stirers than dung beetles is simply correct, and there's nothing "tautologous" about that.

A "new" Anthropic principle goes as follows, and please note that the primary entropic inclination of every object in an expanding universe says that you cannot make an unfounded faith-like philosophical leap outside of this primary inclination of nature to conclude anything but the following :

1. The constants of the universe are finely tuned to require intelligent life by the Principle of Least Action as a means for maximizing entropic efficiency within the constraints of inherent asymmetries.

2. The weak argument simply states that the landscape is equally important to this, and must be conducive to increasing entropy, e.g., the energy that we can expend in the direction of survival must be readily expendable, so the cooperative environment enables entropy to increase, and this means that the entropically preferred system can raise the energy level enough to breach whatever relevant environmental constraints in order that entropy may continue to increase.


3. In other words, the evolutionary process indicates that entropy continues to increase to higher orders of entropic efficiency, (as it is observably proven if humans "leaped" to evolve from apes to the fire breathing monsters that they are today), and this is how asymmetries are carried perpetually forth by the second law in the impossible effort toward idealistically pure symmetry.

Nature express a primary inclination, and there's plenty of purpose behind that. Technology is a huge player, so science can finally get off of the random roulette wheel of chance and adopt a real concept.

How many systems in nature can produce anti-particles?... puts us right up there with black holes and super-novae in terms of entropic efficency on the high energy end of things, and the fact that the human-system is possibly the ONLY system that "attempts" to mix all levels of energy in nature is a strong indication that we are linked to the universal like no other system in nature is, but even the worst case scenario places us high on the list, having a truly universal connection.

Like the man said... "god" doesn't throw dice', and they should have listened the first time.

By island at Thu, 2004/07/29 - 5:00am

Ok, the post below is a flamey rant, don't take it personally, but as an exercise in style:

Saying that men produce anti-particles is about as true as saying algae produce anti-particles.

Men don't produce anti-particles, they just change the environment in ways that produce them. So do algae (for example, by switching the earth to a O2-containing atmosphere, thus enabling combustion, thus enabling particle accelerators). Algae just have a long-term view.

Oh, you may say algae don't do it consciously, as men do, but that is a non-falsifiable proposition, and thus pretty not scientific.

On another aspect, the stuff about how men by mixing all levels of energy are somehow linked "to the universal" is simply stupid, on the level of claiming dung beetles are connected to the universe because they eat dung from all species of animals.

In other words: your posts reek of semi-digested pseudo-scientific new-agey mumbo-jumbo bordering on voodoo.

But don't let my opinion discourage you: your thoughts are useless to me, but they may be useful to you, and it would be worse if you had not thought at all. At least a bit.

By Roberto Alsina at Thu, 2004/07/29 - 5:00am

LOL... what a trip this place is

Okay moron... I'm done with you

By island at Thu, 2004/07/29 - 5:00am

What, got an appointment to pin needles in a doll somewhere?

By Roberto Alsina at Thu, 2004/07/29 - 5:00am

Evolution is the new dogma. These people just believe it blindly without bothering to investigate.

By Craig B at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

Actually, you can *watch* evolution happening with fruit flies. Evolution happens, and I have never yet met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, unless it is because it clashes with their religon. Which makes them extremely biased and frankly I'm not interested in arguing with fruitcakes.

Now, claiming that the universe is perfect for life which proves the existance of god or whatever, is a completely different point. Physics CANNOT refute this. Our current physics is meaningless outside the universe. I therefore have no real issues with the concept of "god" flicking a switch and creating our universe. This is totally unrelated to evolution

By ed moyse at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

Actually you can't watch it happen in friut flys at all. Not at all. If you are talking harmful mutations that is more of an example of the design of the fruitfly and how diverging from that design is very harmful.

By Craig B at Sat, 2004/07/31 - 5:00am

If, as is said in religion today, God created man in his image, then perhaps God is something that evolves.

Pretty simple really, there's never been a conflict between religion and science, just between religious people and scientists!

Science always has been and alway will be the study of God, regardless of his existence or non-existence.

By LazyJim at Fri, 2006/07/07 - 5:00am

I think you are starting the long known discussion between holism and reductionism. I bet you won't find a solution. But of course it is an interesting topic, because both sides can learn from each other. The truth may be, that the world is not holism and reductionism, but something between. So taking a look at the world with a good simulation is a very good idea. Nevertheless, people already tried building a world model in the 1970th and they failed.

I have discussed this topic in my diploma thesis (in German) before applying the idea to software development. If interested please read



By Sebastian Stein at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

thanks for pointing to this, not sure yet whether I have the time to read it, but might be useful.

By Raphael Langerhorst at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

And the universe rotates around Earth?
And the Earth is Flat?
Oh, the dinasaurs were fakes that were placed here in the last 5000 (or sometimes, 10000) years.

Believing in a higher power in life does not require that you ignore the truth before you. Nor does it rquire that you create a bunch of twisted logic concerning it. Nor does it give you the right to create a belief system that allows you to control others.

By a.c. at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am

I would agree 100%. the sun is heating up drasitcly but intelligent people will say that it has nothing to do with global warming. Directive breeding has not been able to turn a dog into something other than a dog. No new species have "evolved" since man has shown up. In fact your arguement is very similar to darwins. Set up a straw man agruement of a creation and use to to show that Evolution is the only other option.

By Craig B at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

Well, in biology species has a very specific meaning.

Now, go and google for "observed instances of speciation", then forget this line of argument, please.

By Roberto Alsina at Fri, 2004/07/30 - 5:00am

Well why don't you google and look up irreducible complexity.

By Craig B at Sat, 2004/07/31 - 5:00am

Hmmm... because I already know what it is, and it doesn't matter?

I mean, you are the one saying that something has never been observed. To prove you wrong, all that's needed is an example, regardless of my position.

(posted twice because I posted in the wrong article)

By Roberto Alsina at Mon, 2004/08/02 - 5:00am

Hmmm... because I already know what it is, and it doesn't matter?

I mean, you are the one saying that something has never been observed. To prove you wrong, all that's needed is an example, regardless of my position.

By Roberto Alsina at Mon, 2004/08/02 - 5:00am

Even if a higher power set all of these conditions in place, it does not mean that said being is not using an understandable set of "rules" to build the universe and human beings.

Religion is concerned with "WHO" & "WHY" it was created.
Philosophy is concerned with "WHY" & "HOW" it was created.
Scinece is concerned with "HOW" & "WHEN" it was created.

Please pardon my simplification.

WHY can't we be friends?

By Jonathan Dietrich at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am


or, more specifically, this:


(which is referenced by the first faq; search for "wildly improbable").

By Mr. Fancypants at Wed, 2004/07/28 - 5:00am