Intelligent Design or Accident?

Re: # 23
Tahmed Saheb, Plancks constant has nothing to with theory of evolution.

Anyways, are you pointing towards theory of parallel universes, I don`t think anyone has ever proven it mathematically. Einstein came very close to it with the concept of curvature in time, that is uou end up where you start.

I don`t know where and how this author is getting these intersting concepts. It sounds like some Science Fiction novel, I consider myself a student of science, but I have`nt seen or heard such things except on NOVA and PBS channels as prospective theories with no empirical evidence as far as existential Universe is concerned.

Whoever said that we are not Monkeys, is correct however, evolution is a linear progression of time, it takes probably million+ yrs for homo eructus to homo sapiens.

Thanks to Linnaneous, we can feel superior by saying that Monkey is a different genre and species. PEter feeding PAul.

tahmed32:

Planck`s constant did not appear in the list as a separate constant but it is included, for instance, in the fine structure constant, which is number 8 on the list. It might be part of some other constants also. I really do not know the rationale on which this list is compiled. I noticed that the same list was given on several other web sites also. So it seems to be the fairly standard list.

Regarding Hamidm`s comment, apes and humans are two different species. One species does not interbreed with another as a general rule. I know somebody might bring up horses and donkeys; they interbreed and the result is a mule which is barren. Both of them (humans and apes) descended from hominids. A random mutation separated them.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 24

tahmed,

...... don`t get so technical - order, species , same thing as far as i am concerned ......... i asked a simple question - is it possible to breed man with monkey ?.......... and if the answer is yes then we should get on with the business of evolution - i am sure we can come up with ``people`` who can swing from a tree and do complex math at the same time ............

you know what guys...why don`t we for once agree on the real life evidence that shows that Some humans are created while others have evolved.
So Both theories are true. now happy?

hamidm: you disappoint me. humans and chimps are part of the same ORDER (i.e. primates), and no one (other than Urstruly...and now you) considers them to be the same species. They dont even belong to the same FAMILY (i.e. hominidae) within that order, for crying out loud.

Almost by definition you cannot have cross-breeding within species (except in rare cases, as in case of horse and ass which produces a jackass, specimen of which can be found on chowk. and even in this case the offspring - jackass - is infertile.)

Gill sahib: Interesting list of universal constants. I did not recognize Planck`s Constant (which is a determinant of the laws of physics in this universe per the string theory as I understand it) in this list. Planck`s constant being the energy of a vibrating molecule, which this gentleman calculated back in 1900 as being equal to 6.26 times 10 to minus 34 joule seconds, and joule seconds being a measure of angular momentum (I looked this value up on google, so dont be too impressed).

Per the string theory then, ours is just of an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of constants. Some universes would be truly wild and crazy per our understanding while others (like ours) would be more staid and conducive to life as we understand it. The parallel drawn between these multiple universes (each transversing 11 dimensions, btw) is that of mountains and valleys: some universes would be wild and inhospitable like snow covered Mt. Everest, while others (including ours) would be relatively peaceful valleys.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, folks are still having trouble coming to terms with evolution - one of the more ho-hum, well-established fact (NOT theory, by any practical standard) of evolution. :-)

gill sahib,

....... just curious ...... has anyone tried to fertilize a chimpanzee egg with human sperm, or vice versa ? ........ if you could do this, wouldn`t it prove that we are the same species ?

p.s. i have seen some ``people`` walking around who make me think that this has already been tried

Re: # 20
I still to think of us as Monkey, sounds good.

Once I was watching PBS, they took a Monkey and a Jar with a Banana and left a pair of sticks around.

This sucker uses the sticks to make a forcep and grabs the banana, and peels it and eats it.

Monkeys, Dolphins and one other type of Octopus(can`t remmeber the name) have evolved brains.

anyways, good article.

PS: Sometimes, when I don`t eat Egg Benedicts in breakfast I behave funny. Parson my rudeness once in a while.

delhiwala:

No, we`re not monkeys. We`ve evolved into homo sapiens. If I understand it correctly, we`re descended from a hominid who was neither wholly human nor wholly ape. He can be considered to be Australopithecus. One of the species from him became humans and the other ape. But then all life converges into the same common ancestor.

Mohammad Gill

Mr Gill,
Are we all Monkeys then?

Tussey vi Monkey
Assey vi Monkey
Monkey hi Monkey
Aggay Monkey
Pichhey Monkey

Interactors:

I reporoduce hereunder a few lines from ``The Paleontologist`s Tale``, which provides a glimpse, in a light vein, on the debate betewwen the creationists and the evolutionists. The whole ``Tale`` exists on the Internet:

So here we are. Our closest living kin?
The chimp, which as we heard from mon cherie
Is ninety-nine percent genetically
Identical to human beings. Now
Creationists, we`ve heard, say this is how
God made us, living things were all created
From one big common plan, so they`re related
By God`s design, no creature has evolved.
It seems to me, though, that leaves unresolved
A question posed by Ruse: ``Why should God plan
To make such grotesque parodies of man
As baboons and gorillas?`` Contemplate
A question asked by Gould: ``Would God create
Successive species - Lucy, Handy Man,
Homo erectus, us - to mimic
Unbroken evolutionary trend?``
Does God deceive his creatures? To what end?

Mohammad Gill

Accident or Intelligent design....
Creation or evolution....??

What if ....its the Same thing... like two sides of the same coin....

Creation .....then left to the princlples of evolution....??

Mr Gill,

Re: the constants. Absolutely beautiful! Thanks for that.

Umer M

God Says after reading the article:

``Israfeel, blow that horn. Jibreel... it`s time.``

Let me try to comment in some orderly manner as follows:

tahmed32’s comment, “You can fly a plane based on scientific principles. You can’t do that based on conjecture,” is very appropriate. There is so much evidence all around us in support of science that we cannot shut our eyes and obliterate it. Thousands of things that we take for granted in daily life provoke us to ponder.

Consider the ordinary X-ray film, for example, that is used in daily diagnosis of fractures, pulmonary infection of lungs, etc. Years and years of hard work went into its development. Same goes for the MRI. The gadgets that are regularly used in the medical field without which a proper diagnosis cannot be performed, were not always there. They were not wished into existence by the creationists. If you take time to consider the treatment of raw water at a water treatment plant which produces potable water for human consumption, you’ll find ample evidence to believe in science.

Post number 10 by Ozerkhalid shows that he has read relevant material about evolution, which is really good. He needs time to digest the information. The scientist who formulated the concept of punctuated evolution (statsis) is a believer of the theory of natural selection. Please continue reading some more.

Although I had stated in the article, “The theory of evolution has not yet reached that stage where it stands or falls by its own merit. It suffers from extreme extrapolation,” the intent was not to undermine or stymie Darwin’s theory of natural selection. There is nothing wrong with it. Extreme extrapolation referred to the transition from microevolution to macroevolution. There is sufficient empirical evidence to convince the ‘specialists’ that the concept of common ancestral descent is correct. However, it has not been presented to the non-specialist readers in a very convincing manner. A non-specialist reader gets lost in the maze of unfamiliar nomenclature and terminology describing the various fossils.

Ozer mentioned about going to the depths of ocean in pursuit of empirical evidence; believe me the scientists have done precisely that and some more. Just consider a group of white Americans and Europeans, who are so very sensitive to heat, digging and peering into the old rock strata in the gullies of Ethiopia and Kenya in the sweltering summer months, hunting for the old bones and fossils, reconstructing the numerous pieces of a skull together, dating the various ‘finds’ by the complex methods of radio-chrometery – for what? They are collecting evidence in support of theory of evolution. If there were nothing to it, they wouldn’t waste their lives in the wilderness. Science is not mere speculating; it is hard work. I have cut and pasted in the following a list of 26 cosmic constants that BeeJay wanted.

Thanks for SR’s and drlokraj’s comments. Wishing all of you well,

Mohammad Gill

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
More than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.

1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and to unevenly
if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous
if slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star dusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun`s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life`s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
24. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
25. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form.

Religeous beliefs and theories based on scientific facts and observations can not be compared head to head.Scientific theories are always open to criticism as they answer some questios and at the same time give birth to some more questions which the next generations try to answer and hence it is a continuous process.Did Darwin ever claim that he has solved the mystery for ever with 100% precision?
On the other hand,the genesis is belief and closed chapter..no arguements but to be accepted as it is.Does Quran say the same thing about it? if yes,then how can one expect muslims to go against that?