Intelligent Design or Accident?

Another nice and precise review Dr Gill. Bravo!
A few points I`d like to add:

Cosmological constant happens to be the greatest issue of contradiction between theoretical and experimental physicists/cosmologists. The observed values of this constant are in sheer disagreement with those predicted by theory. And this is perhaps the reason for the induction of so much effort into research from both sides.

At the Planck scale - the scale of the universe before the big bang - the various forces and constants unify, so we are left with far issue problems to address then at the lower energy scale.

I do not personally think an analogy can be drawn between the Theory of evolution and Evolution of the universe. The universe has evolved on a much more homogeneous and linear pattern, with masses and energies interconverting, and with little or no `innovation`, while that is an important ingridient of Darwinism.

regards
shobig

hamidm: echosqueek approves of your post!! ha! ha!

Re: # 34

tahmed,

....... i think the definition of ``species`` is incorrect ...... just because man and monkey stopped interbreeding does not mean they are a different species ....... by this definition the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis will be different species in another million years or so ......... the fact is that lions and tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring even though they diverged millions of years ago, and so can jackals and domestic dogs ........... just because you have a few chromosomes that are different does not mean you are a different species ............ just look at echoboom - as much as we hate to admit it, he is family ............

tahmed32:

I want to make a correction to my post # 27. The Fine Structure Constant is number 14 on the list and not 8 as stated in my post. Sorry for this lapse.

Mohammad Gill

Re:24

(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.)

The offspring is called a mule, I believe

hamidm2: 22

It is such direct street-smarts which I thoroughly admire in a fellow-man. This is what separates humans from scientists. Consider yourself inducted.

The other day someone printed a news item with picture ( BBC) that a women breast-feeds a monkey (now 7 years old & still) in India and insists on calling it her son. Today there was a picture of a little hanumaan sucking at the cow`s udder ( a Budder he`ll be called?).

I too would be waiting for a very unambigous answer--tahmad32, the resident johnny-boy may continue his pansy-antics to amuse us.

delhiwala #28 Gill sahib had mentioned universal constants and i was just wondering why i did not see Planck`s constant in the list. One need not be a scientist to have an interest in science - and I think that is true for Gill sahib and for me and lots of other people on chowk. Nothing wrong with learning about scientific advancements from PBS - or from books and magazines in layman`s language. There are no brahmins in science - only scientists who push the limits of man`s knowledge, and those who appreciate the work they are doing (which is a large segment of the public worldwide), and those who are content merely to enjoy the fruits of their work (which includes everyone, even the naysaying creationists).

On parallel universes, this idea follows from string theory as i understand it. string theory itself is a mathematical construct at this time, but efforts are underway to design ways to test it. one thing is for certain: string theory (with all its incredible implications) is based on solid work. even if it proves to be not completely true, or even completely incorrect, insights provided by this work represent a significant advance in science. The multi-billion dollar particle accelerator being built in europe, as well as the smaller fermi lab (?) facility that has been in existence for some time in indiana, US are I understand expected to check on some implications of string theory.

hamidm #26 you ask for proof of evolution? i got photographic evidence of evolution for you.

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

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.)

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 ............

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. :-)

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.

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

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