>
> Randy: No, I think these are two separate questions. I agree that we
> should consider what other forms of life might possibly exist. But
> in order for life to adapt it must first develop. In order for life to
> develop the physical constants in the universe must allow it to exist.
>
> Pim:But in order to understand what the valid range of physical
constants is we must understand what forms of life could exist.
>
> Randy: It therefore seems impossible to me for life to adapt to universal
> physical constants which prevent it's formation. I don't think we can
> explain the existence of life in this universe by saying that it adapted
> to this universe's physical constants AFTER it's formation.
>
> Why not ? After all that would be a far better explanation. We see the life as it exists now BECAUSE the universe allowed it to evolve.
I think this is where our disagreement is. I'm arguing a different set
of facts. The entire hinge of the ID argument is that values outside
narrow ranges for these physical constants PREVENT life from evolving
because they prevent life from existing at all. What I'm saying is that
it's impossible for life to adapt to conditions which prevent it from
living because it would die before it could reproduce and leave adapted
offspring. Here's another way to put it:
In a universe with no oxygen it is impossible for oxygen-breathing life
to begin and then develop an adaptation to the lack of oxygen.
Pim:Other life forms which would have a better chance under different
constants were not so lucky. The problem is this, is the adaptation of the `lifeforms to the physical constants what we are seeing right now
or is it the other way around that the universe was adapted for the life forms. For the former there are some good mechanisms but for the
latter ?
Of course, it has to be the former. From the scientific
perspective the physical constants are, by definition, constant and
therefore incapable of any adaptation or change.